I think many American households would certainly embrace him as a suitor or friend, or peer. Unfortnately, at face value it appears that a large part of the dropping of the bi-racial multi cultural dna and history has come from within the black community because THEY prefer to see him as BLACK.
i dunno. i disagree. i think there are white americans aplenty who would welcome him as a friend and i think there are also white americans aplenty who woudnt want him to be their son in law and who would rationalize it by talking about how hard it would be for the kids etc. i think the black community views him as black because he is viewed as black by the white world. despite our trying to wish away the institutionalized racisim in da world it is still there. if you didnt know his background and you were asked to describe the man standing over there and were asked his ethnic background you prolly wouldnt say white or bi racial. especially if he were standing with his wife and kids. i think he summed it up when he said hes black enough when hes trying to hail a cab in new york city. i dont think this means that his being raised by a white mother and white grandparents is to be discounted and in fact he hasnt done so he brought this up all the time. ive heard ann coulter saying of late that bi racial people embrace their african fathers while throwing away, figuratively speaking anyway, the mothers who raised them. not the case here either. i havent heard his speak much about his father or his mother really tho what i have heard his say about her was rather glowing. ive heard lots about his grandparents most of it positive and some of it realistic.
Jan. 23) - Not everyone was happy with President Barack Obama's nod to nonbelievers and non-Christians in his inaugural address. And some of the stiff criticism about Obamas religious inclusiveness is coming from African-American Christians who maintain that no, all faiths were actually not created equal.
LOL. My God is better than your God.
"For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness," the new president said. "We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this earth," he also said. Nothing too controversial, proclaiming that America's strength lies in its diversity.
But between those two statements, the new president got specific: "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers."
I was mildly disappointed that he left out Pagans, but I guess that really would have ruffled a few feathers.
In his inaugural address, President Barack Obama celebrated America as a "nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers." Some Christians are taking issue with the approach to inclusiveness, saying the president misrepresented America's culture and heritage.
By mentioning, for the first time in an inaugural address, the 16.1 percent of Americans who check "no"when asked about religion, Obama turned it into the most controversial line in his speech -- praised by The New York Times editorial board and cited by some Christians as evidence that he is a heretic, and in his well-spoken way, a serious threat.
With that one line, the president "seems to be trying to redefine American culture, which is distinctively Christian," said Bishop E.W. Jackson of the Exodus Faith Ministries in Chesapeake, Va. "The overwhelming majority of Americans identify as Christians, and what disturbs me is that he seems to be trying to redefine who we are."
And this, they feel is a serious threat? It's not "redefining" it's called "reclaiming". The Christians can stay Christian while allowing other religions a voice, too. The First Amendment reads in part:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It does NOT say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, as long as your religion is based upon Christianity."
I'll read and respond to the rest later, this is a long post and I need more coffee.
Beware of accidentally ingesting the imprint of the potus on your donut, enjoy the coffee. I remeber clearly being raised a Catholic that we were NOT "Christians". We were Roman Catholics. When Catholicism blended into Christianity is a mystery to me. Or, why either would want that blend. The one thing I can say for Catholicism is the rules are the rules, for the most part. Revivalists, tongue speaking, healing fear mongers, voodoo preaching hate filled sermons are not comfortable to me. Not what I would want to meld with. And I didn't. Am I recalling this wrong, or weren't the majority of founders actually of Quaker faith? I do know that the point to the free land was to distance itself from the stronghold of The Church of England and seems we're right back where we started but now it's the Church of Global.
I see an important tie in to this being the fact that bi-racial and multi-cultural is all but out the window. At some point Obama simply has been reclassified to African American, who happens to have been raised by his white family. That's remarkable to me. And, again, he seems to embrace that too. Anything to please the moment. Whatever town, whichever country whoevers church. The Secret Service should have code named him chameleon.
This was about religion, not race.
I'm guessing your comment was directed at my "What did you think of the day" post.
"...not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
In this country, if you have dark skin, you're "black." People don't ask to peruse one's genealogical charts when they apply bigotry.
Obama has stated many times his heritage; its not his fault if people draw different conclusions, although I don't see where anyone has. Having a black and an Anglo mother has given Barack Obama a rightful place in the black civil rights movement -- the marriage of his parents was still illegal in two states, because his father was black and his mother anglo.
Marian Anderson was refused admittance to Constitution Hall because she was a "colored" person. When you get right down to it, Barack Obama is the same.
In his inaugural address, President Barack Obama celebrated America as a "nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers." Some Christians are taking issue with the approach to inclusiveness, saying the president misrepresented America's culture and heritage.
By mentioning, for the first time in an inaugural address, the 16.1 percent of Americans who check "no"when asked about religion, Obama turned it into the most controversial line in his speech -- praised by The New York Times editorial board and cited by some Christians as evidence that he is a heretic, and in his well-spoken way, a serious threat.
With that one line, the president "seems to be trying to redefine American culture, which is distinctively Christian," said Bishop E.W. Jackson of the Exodus Faith Ministries in Chesapeake, Va. "The overwhelming majority of Americans identify as Christians, and what disturbs me is that he seems to be trying to redefine who we are."
i noticed that line too but for other reasons. i noticed because he was specific and left out more than he put in. lol. i do think that people who hold power, in this case some christian folks, are reluctant to give up that power and will do what people do when they are seeing that slip from their grasp, they rail against it and demonize those they feel are behind the threat. this country has changed, will continue to change, and along its edges it is not that christian majority that people assume. i know in this area you scratch a person and get any sort of diverse religious belief. just yesterday at the y pool i was having a conversation about 911 with the lifeguard while doing my water pilates. i assumed he was puerto rican and catholic but as it turns out his father was puerto rican his, mother from the middle east and he was muslim. we did have a very interesting discussion about 911 tho and the sorts of discrimination hes faced when sharing that with others.
I see an important tie in to this being the fact that bi-racial and multi-cultural is all but out the window. At some point Obama simply has been reclassified to African American, who happens to have been raised by his white family. That's remarkable to me. And, again, he seems to embrace that too. Anything to please the moment. Whatever town, whichever country whoevers church. The Secret Service should have code named him chameleon.
lol. i forget what is his secret service code name? i think obama is classified as african american because thats the way white people view him. i think the racial gradations are far more visible from within minority communities, skin tone vs pure skin color but to the average white american if there is any slight racial characteristic that defines someone of aa heritage they become black in the eyes of that person. at least thats what i see in people in their candid moments. if barack obama came to dinner in most american households and wanted to date the daughter, those parents wouldnt be focusing on his half white side. when we get to the place where thats the case i think we really will have reached that mountaintop.
I think many American households would certainly embrace him as a suitor or friend, or peer. Unfortnately, at face value it appears that a large part of the dropping of the bi-racial multi cultural dna and history has come from within the black community because THEY prefer to see him as BLACK. It puts the trek to the mountaintop in the hands of the blacks that won't embrace the "multi" concept. He's simply not African American, in itself. His whole life was wrapped up in being heeled by whites in a white environment with white education and white cultural influences. And now he's surrounded himself with a Cabinet full of them. Yeah, I'm thinkin' bi-racial, at best. And that may prove to just not be good enough in the long haul, to the African Americans, not necessarily to white America.
In his inaugural address, President Barack Obama celebrated America as a "nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers." Some Christians are taking issue with the approach to inclusiveness, saying the president misrepresented America's culture and heritage.
By mentioning, for the first time in an inaugural address, the 16.1 percent of Americans who check "no"when asked about religion, Obama turned it into the most controversial line in his speech -- praised by The New York Times editorial board and cited by some Christians as evidence that he is a heretic, and in his well-spoken way, a serious threat.
With that one line, the president "seems to be trying to redefine American culture, which is distinctively Christian," said Bishop E.W. Jackson of the Exodus Faith Ministries in Chesapeake, Va. "The overwhelming majority of Americans identify as Christians, and what disturbs me is that he seems to be trying to redefine who we are."
i noticed that line too but for other reasons. i noticed because he was specific and left out more than he put in. lol. i do think that people who hold power, in this case some christian folks, are reluctant to give up that power and will do what people do when they are seeing that slip from their grasp, they rail against it and demonize those they feel are behind the threat. this country has changed, will continue to change, and along its edges it is not that christian majority that people assume. i know in this area you scratch a person and get any sort of diverse religious belief. just yesterday at the y pool i was having a conversation about 911 with the lifeguard while doing my water pilates. i assumed he was puerto rican and catholic but as it turns out his father was puerto rican his, mother from the middle east and he was muslim. we did have a very interesting discussion about 911 tho and the sorts of discrimination hes faced when sharing that with others.
I see an important tie in to this being the fact that bi-racial and multi-cultural is all but out the window. At some point Obama simply has been reclassified to African American, who happens to have been raised by his white family. That's remarkable to me. And, again, he seems to embrace that too. Anything to please the moment. Whatever town, whichever country whoevers church. The Secret Service should have code named him chameleon.
lol. i forget what is his secret service code name? i think obama is classified as african american because thats the way white people view him. i think the racial gradations are far more visible from within minority communities, skin tone vs pure skin color but to the average white american if there is any slight racial characteristic that defines someone of aa heritage they become black in the eyes of that person. at least thats what i see in people in their candid moments. if barack obama came to dinner in most american households and wanted to date the daughter, those parents wouldnt be focusing on his half white side. when we get to the place where thats the case i think we really will have reached that mountaintop.
Jan. 23) - Not everyone was happy with President Barack Obama's nod to nonbelievers and non-Christians in his inaugural address. And some of the stiff criticism about Obamas religious inclusiveness is coming from African-American Christians who maintain that no, all faiths were actually not created equal.
"For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness," the new president said. "We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this earth," he also said. Nothing too controversial, proclaiming that America's strength lies in its diversity.
But between those two statements, the new president got specific: "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers."
In his inaugural address, President Barack Obama celebrated America as a "nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers." Some Christians are taking issue with the approach to inclusiveness, saying the president misrepresented America's culture and heritage.
By mentioning, for the first time in an inaugural address, the 16.1 percent of Americans who check "no"when asked about religion, Obama turned it into the most controversial line in his speech -- praised by The New York Times editorial board and cited by some Christians as evidence that he is a heretic, and in his well-spoken way, a serious threat.
With that one line, the president "seems to be trying to redefine American culture, which is distinctively Christian," said Bishop E.W. Jackson of the Exodus Faith Ministries in Chesapeake, Va. "The overwhelming majority of Americans identify as Christians, and what disturbs me is that he seems to be trying to redefine who we are."
Earlier this week, Jackson was a guest on the popular conservative Christian radio show 'Janet Parshall's America,' where a succession of callers, many of whom identified themselves as African-American, said they shared the concern, and were perplexed and put off by the presidents shout-out to nonbelievers.
Parshall noted that atheists were celebrating the unexpected mention, and indeed they were: "In his inaugural address President Barack Obama did what many before him should have done, rightly citing the great diversity of America as part of the nation's great strength, and including 'nonbelievers' in that mix," said Ed Buckner of American Atheists.
"His mother would have been proud," Buckner said, referring to the fact that Obama's mother was not a church-goer. "And so are we."
Jackson said he and others have no problem acknowledging that "this country is one in which everybody has the freedom to think what they want.'" Yet Obama crossed the line, in his view, in suggesting that all faiths (and none) were different roads to the same destination: "He made similar remarks in the campaign, and said, 'We are no longer a Christian nation, if we ever were. We are a Jewish, Hindu and non-believing nation.'"
Not so, Jackson says: "Obviously, Jewish heritage is very much a part of Christianity; the Jewish Bible is part of our Bible. But Hindu, Muslim, and nonbelievers? I don't think so. We are not a Muslim nation or a nonbelieving nation.'"
With all the focus on Obama as the first African-American president, the succession of black callers to Janet Parshall's show was a reminder that the "community" is not a monolith, and that many socially conservative black Americans are at odds with Obama's views, particularly on abortion and gay rights. Nor do they all define civil rights in the same way.
The Rev. Cecil Blye, pastor of More Grace Ministries Church in Louisville, Ky., said the president's reference to nonbelievers also set off major alarm bells for him. "It's important to understand the heritage of our country, and it's a Judeo-Christian tradition,"' period.
But his even bigger beef with the president, he said, is that a disproportionate number of "black kids are dying each day through abortion. President Obama is supportive of abortion, and that's a genocide on black folks. Nobody wants to talk about that as a civil rights issue." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oy. So much in this article upon which to comment ....
Taking the last one first:
y "black kids are dying each day through abortion."
Black kids were dying through abortion when it was illegal, and they did the best they could, where they could. I'm not talking about black fetus', I'm talking about actual black kids. I won't even bother to go into the racist elements of not allowing equal access to legal and safe abortion, by placing it in the precarious state where only those with the means to leave the country may .... no, I said I wasn't going to go into it, and I'm not.
y But between those two statements, the new president got specific: "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers."
In his inaugural address, President Barack Obama celebrated America as a "nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers." Some Christians are taking issue with the approach to inclusiveness, saying the president misrepresented America's culture and heritage.
OK, first off, I don't know that "WE ARE" is a lead in to a comment about our heritage. But even if it were -- many of the founding "fathers" weren't Christian. If you want to talk about our heritage, then you need to explore the shift to the RR in the repressive 50's when "God" was being added to our pledge of allegiance, our money, and infused into our government every which way from Sunday. "E Pluribus Unum" was booted for the new "In God We Trust" Indeed, even the big push against communism then, lead by religious leaders like Billy Graham as well as high ranking government officials including cabinet members. It initially wasn't so much that communism per se was "bad" -- it was that the communist leaders were atheists.
yWith that one line, the president "seems to be trying to redefine American culture, which is distinctively Christian," said' Bishop E.W. Jackson of the Exodus Faith Ministries in Chesapeake, Va. "The overwhelming majority of Americans identify as Christians, and what disturbs me is that he seems to be trying to redefine who we are.'"
No, you, Bishop Jackson, are trying to redefine "who we are." President Obama was merely stating a fact. WE ARE more than heterosexual Christians. We are that, but we are also homosexual and heterosexual Christians, and Muslims, Jews, Wiccans, Atheists, Agnostics, and a whole host of variances with which you would probably take issue. That's cool. That's cool, because according to our constitution, you beliefs should not bar you from the threshold of equal access to your government. In fact, the only mention of anything religious in the constitution affirms that very thing, and the US Supreme Court has upheld time and time again each citizen's "right" to be a non-believer if they so choose.
This backlash is to be expected, really. Anyone who's been paying attention at all is not surprised that this "first black president" isn't going to fall into lockstep with the social dictates of the black community. He is, as he said he was, and would be, the president of all of America. That's bound to ruffle some feathers of those who figured his politics to be determined by the shade of his skin.
y "Jackson said he and others have no problem acknowledging that "this country is one in which everybody has the freedom to think what they want." Yet Obama crossed the line, in his view, in suggesting that all faiths (and none) were different roads to the same destination: "He made similar remarks in the campaign, and said, 'We are no longer a Christian nation, if we ever were. We are a Jewish, Hindu and non-believing nation.'"
Not so, Jackson says: "Obviously, Jewish heritage is very much a part of Christianity; the Jewish Bible is part of our Bible. But Hindu, Muslim, and nonbelievers? I don't think so. We are not a Muslim nation or a nonbelieving nation."
Well, yes, you're right. We are not a Muslim nation or a nonbelieving nation. We're also not a Christian nation or a Jewish nation. We're a nation where a person may be whatever they choose, and should the day come when we lose that right, we will be a nation adrift, without one of the most important anchors of this experiment in democracy to hold us in place.
y The Rev. Cecil Blye, pastor of More Grace Ministries Church in Louisville, Ky., said the president's reference to nonbelievers also set off major alarm bells for him. "It's important to understand the heritage of our country, and it's a Judeo-Christian tradition," period
In what sense? How is this our country's "tradition" and "heritage?"
Our first president never declared himself to be a Christian.
Our second president was a Unitarian; it was during his administration the Treaty of Friendship and Peace, (or the Treaty of Tripoli) was ratified which includes the following article:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Our third president, Jefferson, who said he wanted to be a Unitarian, but there weren't any groups in Virginia, said:
"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
President number four, who was considered the father of the constitution, and proposed the first amendment had this to say about religion:
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
So then, what precisely is this "heritage" of which you speak, Reverend Blye? Might it be the one fabricated and perpetuated by the clergy in hopes of turning this nation into a theocracy? Did you expect our new president to forget history, and subscribe to your revisionism?
I, for one, thank Lucille he didn't.
-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 03:38, 2009-01-24
I see an important tie in to this being the fact that bi-racial and multi-cultural is all but out the window. At some point Obama simply has been reclassified to African American, who happens to have been raised by his white family. That's remarkable to me. And, again, he seems to embrace that too. Anything to please the moment. Whatever town, whichever country whoevers church. The Secret Service should have code named him chameleon.
Jan. 23) - Not everyone was happy with President Barack Obama's nod to nonbelievers and non-Christians in his inaugural address. And some of the stiff criticism about Obamas religious inclusiveness is coming from African-American Christians who maintain that no, all faiths were actually not created equal.
LOL. My God is better than your God.
"For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness," the new president said. "We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this earth," he also said. Nothing too controversial, proclaiming that America's strength lies in its diversity.
But between those two statements, the new president got specific: "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers."
I was mildly disappointed that he left out Pagans, but I guess that really would have ruffled a few feathers.
In his inaugural address, President Barack Obama celebrated America as a "nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers." Some Christians are taking issue with the approach to inclusiveness, saying the president misrepresented America's culture and heritage.
By mentioning, for the first time in an inaugural address, the 16.1 percent of Americans who check "no"when asked about religion, Obama turned it into the most controversial line in his speech -- praised by The New York Times editorial board and cited by some Christians as evidence that he is a heretic, and in his well-spoken way, a serious threat.
With that one line, the president "seems to be trying to redefine American culture, which is distinctively Christian," said Bishop E.W. Jackson of the Exodus Faith Ministries in Chesapeake, Va. "The overwhelming majority of Americans identify as Christians, and what disturbs me is that he seems to be trying to redefine who we are."
And this, they feel is a serious threat? It's not "redefining" it's called "reclaiming". The Christians can stay Christian while allowing other religions a voice, too. The First Amendment reads in part:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It does NOT say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, as long as your religion is based upon Christianity."
I'll read and respond to the rest later, this is a long post and I need more coffee.
Jan. 23) - Not everyone was happy with President Barack Obama's nod to nonbelievers and non-Christians in his inaugural address. And some of the stiff criticism about Obamas religious inclusiveness is coming from African-American Christians who maintain that no, all faiths were actually not created equal.
"For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness," the new president said. "We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this earth," he also said. Nothing too controversial, proclaiming that America's strength lies in its diversity.
But between those two statements, the new president got specific: "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers."
In his inaugural address, President Barack Obama celebrated America as a "nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers." Some Christians are taking issue with the approach to inclusiveness, saying the president misrepresented America's culture and heritage.
By mentioning, for the first time in an inaugural address, the 16.1 percent of Americans who check "no"when asked about religion, Obama turned it into the most controversial line in his speech -- praised by The New York Times editorial board and cited by some Christians as evidence that he is a heretic, and in his well-spoken way, a serious threat.
With that one line, the president "seems to be trying to redefine American culture, which is distinctively Christian," said Bishop E.W. Jackson of the Exodus Faith Ministries in Chesapeake, Va. "The overwhelming majority of Americans identify as Christians, and what disturbs me is that he seems to be trying to redefine who we are."
Earlier this week, Jackson was a guest on the popular conservative Christian radio show 'Janet Parshall's America,' where a succession of callers, many of whom identified themselves as African-American, said they shared the concern, and were perplexed and put off by the presidents shout-out to nonbelievers.
Parshall noted that atheists were celebrating the unexpected mention, and indeed they were: "In his inaugural address President Barack Obama did what many before him should have done, rightly citing the great diversity of America as part of the nation's great strength, and including 'nonbelievers' in that mix," said Ed Buckner of American Atheists.
"His mother would have been proud," Buckner said, referring to the fact that Obama's mother was not a church-goer. "And so are we."
Jackson said he and others have no problem acknowledging that "this country is one in which everybody has the freedom to think what they want.'" Yet Obama crossed the line, in his view, in suggesting that all faiths (and none) were different roads to the same destination: "He made similar remarks in the campaign, and said, 'We are no longer a Christian nation, if we ever were. We are a Jewish, Hindu and non-believing nation.'"
Not so, Jackson says: "Obviously, Jewish heritage is very much a part of Christianity; the Jewish Bible is part of our Bible. But Hindu, Muslim, and nonbelievers? I don't think so. We are not a Muslim nation or a nonbelieving nation.'"
With all the focus on Obama as the first African-American president, the succession of black callers to Janet Parshall's show was a reminder that the "community" is not a monolith, and that many socially conservative black Americans are at odds with Obama's views, particularly on abortion and gay rights. Nor do they all define civil rights in the same way.
The Rev. Cecil Blye, pastor of More Grace Ministries Church in Louisville, Ky., said the president's reference to nonbelievers also set off major alarm bells for him. "It's important to understand the heritage of our country, and it's a Judeo-Christian tradition,"' period.
But his even bigger beef with the president, he said, is that a disproportionate number of "black kids are dying each day through abortion. President Obama is supportive of abortion, and that's a genocide on black folks. Nobody wants to talk about that as a civil rights issue." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oy. So much in this article upon which to comment ....
Taking the last one first:
y "black kids are dying each day through abortion."
Black kids were dying through abortion when it was illegal, and they did the best they could, where they could. I'm not talking about black fetus', I'm talking about actual black kids. I won't even bother to go into the racist elements of not allowing equal access to legal and safe abortion, by placing it in the precarious state where only those with the means to leave the country may .... no, I said I wasn't going to go into it, and I'm not.
y But between those two statements, the new president got specific: "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers."
In his inaugural address, President Barack Obama celebrated America as a "nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers." Some Christians are taking issue with the approach to inclusiveness, saying the president misrepresented America's culture and heritage.
OK, first off, I don't know that "WE ARE" is a lead in to a comment about our heritage. But even if it were -- many of the founding "fathers" weren't Christian. If you want to talk about our heritage, then you need to explore the shift to the RR in the repressive 50's when "God" was being added to our pledge of allegiance, our money, and infused into our government every which way from Sunday. "E Pluribus Unum" was booted for the new "In God We Trust" Indeed, even the big push against communism then, lead by religious leaders like Billy Graham as well as high ranking government officials including cabinet members. It initially wasn't so much that communism per se was "bad" -- it was that the communist leaders were atheists.
yWith that one line, the president "seems to be trying to redefine American culture, which is distinctively Christian," said' Bishop E.W. Jackson of the Exodus Faith Ministries in Chesapeake, Va. "The overwhelming majority of Americans identify as Christians, and what disturbs me is that he seems to be trying to redefine who we are.'"
No, you, Bishop Jackson, are trying to redefine "who we are." President Obama was merely stating a fact. WE ARE more than heterosexual Christians. We are that, but we are also homosexual and heterosexual Christians, and Muslims, Jews, Wiccans, Atheists, Agnostics, and a whole host of variances with which you would probably take issue. That's cool. That's cool, because according to our constitution, you beliefs should not bar you from the threshold of equal access to your government. In fact, the only mention of anything religious in the constitution affirms that very thing, and the US Supreme Court has upheld time and time again each citizen's "right" to be a non-believer if they so choose.
This backlash is to be expected, really. Anyone who's been paying attention at all is not surprised that this "first black president" isn't going to fall into lockstep with the social dictates of the black community. He is, as he said he was, and would be, the president of all of America. That's bound to ruffle some feathers of those who figured his politics to be determined by the shade of his skin.
y "Jackson said he and others have no problem acknowledging that "this country is one in which everybody has the freedom to think what they want." Yet Obama crossed the line, in his view, in suggesting that all faiths (and none) were different roads to the same destination: "He made similar remarks in the campaign, and said, 'We are no longer a Christian nation, if we ever were. We are a Jewish, Hindu and non-believing nation.'"
Not so, Jackson says: "Obviously, Jewish heritage is very much a part of Christianity; the Jewish Bible is part of our Bible. But Hindu, Muslim, and nonbelievers? I don't think so. We are not a Muslim nation or a nonbelieving nation."
Well, yes, you're right. We are not a Muslim nation or a nonbelieving nation. We're also not a Christian nation or a Jewish nation. We're a nation where a person may be whatever they choose, and should the day come when we lose that right, we will be a nation adrift, without one of the most important anchors of this experiment in democracy to hold us in place.
y The Rev. Cecil Blye, pastor of More Grace Ministries Church in Louisville, Ky., said the president's reference to nonbelievers also set off major alarm bells for him. "It's important to understand the heritage of our country, and it's a Judeo-Christian tradition," period
In what sense? How is this our country's "tradition" and "heritage?"
Our first president never declared himself to be a Christian.
Our second president was a Unitarian; it was during his administration the Treaty of Friendship and Peace, (or the Treaty of Tripoli) was ratified which includes the following article:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Our third president, Jefferson, who said he wanted to be a Unitarian, but there weren't any groups in Virginia, said:
"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
President number four, who was considered the father of the constitution, and proposed the first amendment had this to say about religion:
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
So then, what precisely is this "heritage" of which you speak, Reverend Blye? Might it be the one fabricated and perpetuated by the clergy in hopes of turning this nation into a theocracy? Did you expect our new president to forget history, and subscribe to your revisionism?
