Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I don't see why any president should have to take an oath on a bible. This is a Democracy, NOT a Christian nation. Do they have family bibles for atheists? Does McCain have a family bible? Probably not since he has changed religions more than once. religion now. It is all so absurd, and a distraction from the real issues.
Separation of church and state!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sheesh. Give it a rest, Salon.
On the other hand, this on-line magazine isn't exactly The Nation and that headline will generate clicks to the letters section, which means money and this is about making money in a business stake, so why am I bothering to blather on about the usual bitty-bite of concern trolling, I dunno.
Guess I like the sound of my own fingers tapping.
I'm here for the TT, anyway, man.
... A friend of mine has a sister in a congregation in Arkansas whose pastor preaches that Obama is the anti-christ. ...
I thought churches could lose their tax exempt status for preaching for or against a particular *candidate* and could only preach re *issues*. Maybe it's time that church got a nice warning letter from a tax attorney.
This thread gets an award for attracting that Macedonian. I love this topic, even though it is utterly ridiculous. All Classics majors love this topic.
Barack does not care what the Slavic Macedonians call themselves. But the Greeks care. They already have a place called Macedonia. Would anybody agree to rename Canada "New York?" No.
Your country is more like Illyria, historically, but the Albanians took over Illyria, and your people did not get there until centuries later. Alexander was a Macedonian, and he was Greek. You are not Greek.
The Greeks are silly, but you are sillier. Barack is not nearly so silly. He does not care. What's in a name? Find some other old name that fits. How about Barbaria?
I meant "Barbaria" instead of Macedonia.
I lived in Northern CA most of my adult life, and am accustomed to the, how shall I say, coastal consciousness. However, I still have relatives in the midwest, whom I barely have any contact with except for email. And, I get these completely dumb urban legend things from them...often after I send them something smart and/or witty. I have been actually upset to find out that this is how my kin thinks. Thank god there's some distance!
The thing is, they are not uneducated hicks. They all have college degrees and many are professional. Yet, their minds are somewhere back in...what??? I don't get it. Can someone explain? Is there something in the water back there?
What makes educated people buy the lies and vote for a dunce like GWB? And now, they buy all the new lies, like they haven't figured out that lies are part of the Repub strategy. These people seem immune from reality. They hate facts!
In an earlier Salon article, someone wrote from the midwest that there are many people who (barely) know how to use computers; that they are more apt to believe an email from Aunt Mary than a real news source. They are not sharp enough to do a coherent google search for facts and info.
It pains me to think that people this dumb are voting to selecct MY president. At least this time, if the Repubs "win" again, I won't have to fantasize about leaving the country. I already have.
bernbart, addressing me specifically: I don't see why any president should have to take an oath on a bible. This is a Democracy, NOT a Christian nation.
I didn't say any president should have to take an oath on a Bible. I said that Obama could have taken an opportunity in this ad in which he was "reintroducing" himself to the public to address the rumor about his being a Muslim, and do so without repeating the canard. Presidents-elect typically take the oath of office on a Bible. I think all of them have done so. It's not required by the Constitution; it's a tradition. I acknowledge the tradition. That doesn't mean I approve of it. My point was that as long as presidents-elect are routinely taking the oath of office on their Bibles and Obama will too if he's elected, why not take the opportunity to say "when I take the oath of office" in a slightly different way that might assuage some people's concerns?
As for "This is a democracy, not a Christian nation," that might be a non sequitur given that, I don't believe, "democracy" and "Christian nation" are mutually exclusive. It probably depends on how one defines "Christian nation." The nonsequitur aside, however, I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment.
Obama's religion should be a non issue. It is about what the man is going to do to help individuals help themselves. For example, more access to higher education, health care, making free trade a little less brutal, loss of jobs ect.., What worries me is that Obama is just a more moderate version of McCain. This indeed is a worry, because a lot of Americans are suffering these days. Forget his religion its more important to have a good paying job with health care and a better educational system. As I said his religion is a NON ISSUE.
...has been the one my idiot relatives at the confluence of the Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay (just south of East Bumfuck, Egypt I believe), keep sending themselves (and me, since I am one of them, kind of), wherein a litany of atrocities perpetrated by "Muslims" (when are we going to start identifying all criminal acts by race, gender and religion? It could be an eye-opener) followed by a statement (not a quote, obviously) that "the Bible" "says" in the Book of Revelation that the "Antichrist" will be a) a Muslim, b) between the ages of 17 and 40, and c) will have a Christ-like mass-appeal.
Well I don't know where the originator found his "Bible" at, but since Barack Obama is 46 years old he is already disqualified from Antichrist status. He also is not a Mulsim (though I am yet to understand what the problem with this would be if he or anyone else, like, saaaay, Keith Ellison...were), but I assure anyone who may have seen this bullshit and given it a second thought, there is no mention in Revelation of Islam or "a Muslim", since the religion in question was not founded til a good 500 years after the Council of Nicea assembled what we laughingly refer to as "The Holy Bible." And even then it left out Revelation. That was added back later by some rowdy Protestants protesting about something.
Well, that was my favorite stupid chain email at least until the Macedonian thing arrived here, which I am quite certain my half-witted (and half-white, too, by the way, which may explain more than is obvious) cousins get ahold of it. Then again, if that porn-and-Viagra idea is ever set in motion that will definitely be my all-time favorite chain slander. You just can't beat porn and up to four hours of something like a spine, more or less.
The good news, I believe anyway, is that this phenomenon is largely a matter of preaching to the choir. It's not like any of these dimbulbs would have voted for Barack Obama to begin with. They are mostly knee-jerk Republicans, they don't like black people (or even half-black people who look like black people but talk gooder'n they can and have been to kollitch), they don't cotton to furriners, and I suspect near total absence of cerebral event in most of them.
And, as someone earlier suggested, this has caused me to start circulating an opposition email, condemning people who use lies and misquote the Bible (possible lynching offense). Still, the crap keeps floating back to me.
The stupid, like the poor, are with us always. I just wish there weren't so many on the Salon editorial staff.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
