All this talk about Obama's religion misses the obvious conclusion

[BenBurch]

I have to agree with Whip on this one. Just because they're Democrats doesn't mean they're secular in their governance. ...

I know. I was just yanking his chain.

 

[Cleon]

Any chance that you will a) read the article I linked to

Read it. Unimpressed.

and b) stop trying to poison the well

I'm not.

and c) stop misrepresenting what he said?

Blatant lie on your part.

His words were, "the Constitution established the United States as a Christian nation." There's no way for me to "misrepresent" that statement. It is simply factually untrue.

You can talk about some vague "Christian principles" being in the foundation of the United States, if you like.

But you won't find them in the Constitution. At all.

If you can't do those, can you try to be at least a little bit more subtle about it?

So, the only way to justify what he said is to assume that he meant something different than the words that came out of his mouth. OK.

 

[MattusMaximus]

This document puts the final nail in the coffin of those making the lame "the U.S.A. was founded as a Christian nation" b.s. (it still holds the weight of law, btw):

Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli (c. 1797)

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 tranquility, 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.

Emphasis mine. Seems pretty clear-cut to me, but I'm sure some will try to spin it to mean something else. Watch them spin and achieve liftoff

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Maybe he just isn't a very religious person? Hell, his wife probably dragged him to Rev. Wright's church on Christmas and Easter!

According to Dreams, He went quite some time before he met his wife. However, the same book seems to imply he was an Atheist before going to Wright's church.

 

[gtc]

Read it. Unimpressed.

Let me know when you want to explain why you are unimpressed. Just saying that doesn't indicate anything.

I'm not.

Yes you are. You have taken a line out of context. I have suggested that the context shows the meaning that he intended that sentence to have. Rather than addressing that context you have suggested that mentioning it is 'harping' and you have said that McCain explaining his meaning is like a mentalist providing an 'out'. You have sought to spuriously portray the explanation in a negative light without actually addressing it. If there is a better phrase for what you are doing than poisoning the well then please provide it.

Blatant lie on your part.

No.

You are misrepresenting him because your silly little challenge was:

I challenge you to find a single Christian principle embodied in the Constitution.

When McCain said

But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.

See the difference. That is why you are misrepresenting McCain. A decent person would apologise and retract your allegation that I was lying. I doubt you will however.

His words were, "the Constitution established the United States as a Christian nation." There's no way for me to "misrepresent" that statement. It is simply factually untrue.

See above. And you are still taking that quote out of context.

You can talk about some vague "Christian principles" being in the foundation of the United States, if you like.

But you won't find them in the Constitution. At all.

That is nice. But once again you are taking the words out of context.

So, the only way to justify what he said is to assume that he meant something different than the words that came out of his mouth. OK.

No. I am assuming that he meant what he said in its entirety. You have taken a sentence out of context and shorn it of the meaning that he gave it. The fact that you are so desperate and obvious in your attempts to avoid looking at the context tells me that you know this.

 

[Cleon]

Let me know when you want to explain why you are unimpressed. Just saying that doesn't indicate anything.

The "article" consisted of little more than a blog posting that essentially says, "I agree with that."

Not much to expound on there.

Yes you are. You have taken a line out of context. I have suggested that the context shows the meaning that he intended that sentence to have. Rather than addressing that context you have suggested that mentioning it is 'harping' and you have said that McCain explaining his meaning is like a mentalist providing an 'out'. You have sought to spuriously portray the explanation in a negative light without actually addressing it. If there is a better phrase for what you are doing than poisoning the well then please provide it.

No.

Sorry, that just doesn't work. His statement was incorrect--context or no.

No.

You are misrepresenting him

That's a lie. Stop that, will you?

See the difference. That is why you are misrepresenting McCain. A decent person would apologise and retract your allegation that I was lying. I doubt you will however.

Because you are lying.

You seem to think that harping (there's that word again! nooo!) on another line in McCain's statement excuses the falsehood in the first.

It doesn't.

That is nice. But once again you are taking the words out of context.

No, the context simply doesn't make the statement any less incorrect, as you seem to think it does.

"The Constitution clearly established the United States as a Christian nation."

That statement is simply false. Whether in a "broad sense" of vague "Christian principles this nation was founded on" or otherwise, it is still false.

 

[gtc]

I have pointed out that your challenge misrepresented McCain and you completely ignored what I wrote.

I knew you lacked the decency to retract your claim that I was lying. I didn't think that you were so dishonourable as to repeat the claim.

I would call you a liar but I have no idea if you are deliberately stating the untruth or not.

 

[Cleon]

I have pointed out that your challenge misrepresented McCain and you completely ignored what I wrote.

I knew you lacked the decency to retract your claim that I was lying. I didn't think that you were so dishonourable as to repeat the claim.

I would call you a liar but I have no idea if you are deliberately stating the untruth or not.

I have pointed out that your claim lacks substance, that I have not misrepresented McCain, and that his words speak for themselves.

That you refuse to acknowledge this is not my problem, but yours.

The fact that you insist on making the issue about me is also your problem, not mine.

 

[dudalb]

Public relgious image doesn't mean much. It seems likely that blair was a lot more relgious than he let on during him PM years.

I got a feeling that was because of the Catholic issue. If he had been an Anglican no one would have cared.
I would hate to think that "Secularists" are becoming as intolerent as "Beleivers", but, sadly, there is evidence for that.

 

[gtc]

I have pointed out that your claim lacks substance, that I have not misrepresented McCain, and that his words speak for themselves.

You have lied repeatedly about this. Do you admit that McCain wrote:

But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.

While you wrote:

I challenge you to find a single Christian principle embodied in the Constitution.

That is why you misrepresented him.

That you refuse to acknowledge this is not my problem, but yours.

Sorry mate you are the one with the problem around here. You know that, when placed in its context, McCain's statement does not carry the meaning that you want to give it. That is why you described the context as an 'out' - something which mentalists use to change the meaning of their statements. In this context it was obviously an explanation - something which people use to explain the meaning of their sentences. You even attempted to preemptively shut down disscusion of the context by suggesting that mentioning the context would be 'harping'; another indication that you realise that the context changes the meaning.

The fact that you insist on making the issue about me is also your problem, not mine.

You insisted on making the issue about me when you called me a liar. When shown that I was not lying you repeated your claim. You are the one who personalised the issue and the fact that you are now claiming otherwise just shows the sort of person you are.

At the end of the day, any suggestion that Obama won't be influenced by his religious views would be as silly as suggesting that McCain would somehow establish a theocracy.

 

[Cleon]

You have lied repeatedly about this.

Bull.

Do you admit that McCain wrote:

But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.

Of course. I've never denied it. At all.

While you wrote:

I challenge you to find a single Christian principle embodied in the Constitution.

That is why you misrepresented him.

WTF?

First, that statement was aimed at you, at your interpretation of McCain's comments. Not at McCain.

Second, do you admit that McCain also said, "the Constitution established the United States as a Christian nation?"

The context does not mitigate that statement in any way. That's not me misrepresenting him. That's McCain saying something that's simply factually untrue.

 

[gtc]

WTF?

Cute. Rather than admitting you shouldn't have called me a liar, you pretend that this is the first time you have seen this.

First, that statement was aimed at you, at your interpretation of McCain's comments. Not at McCain.

Now this is just nonsense. Where did I say that McCain believes that the constitution embodied Christian principles?

I am done discussing this issue with you. You obviously have no interest in discussing the OP and you are still trying to divorce the statement from its context because you know that the context shows that the meaning that you wish to give the sentence is false. Your assertions otherwise ring hollow.

 

[daredelvis]

...the conclusion that being a Muslim disqualifies one for national office in the USA? It is sad how that not only is that a given for so many people, but how uncontroversial that view appears to be.

Daredelvis

 

[Cleon]

I am done discussing this issue with you. You obviously have no interest in discussing the OP and you are still trying to divorce the statement from its context because you know that the context shows that the meaning that you wish to give the sentence is false. Your assertions otherwise ring hollow.

There you go lying again.

"The Constitution established the United States as a Christian nation."

The context of the statement in no way mitigates that statement. The statement is simply false. Wrong. Incorrect. Untrue. Devoid of fact.

I'm not "giving" it any meaning. Words mean things, and what these words mean is something that just isn't so.

You can attack me all you want, but it won't change that one little bit.

 

[Nogbad]

The sad thing is...that politicians in the US have to play the religious card.

Sure, everyone of rational thought says, "there is a separation". But that never enters into the campaign reality.

I will long be dead before a politician can proudly say, "that stuff is NONSENSE".

Perhaps a Father Dougal moment is needed

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BDNvLiKcZN0&feature=related

 

[MarkCorrigan]

There you go lying again.

"The Constitution established the United States as a Christian nation."

The context of the statement in no way mitigates that statement. The statement is simply false. Wrong. Incorrect. Untrue. Devoid of fact.

I'm not "giving" it any meaning. Words mean things, and what these words mean is something that just isn't so.

You can attack me all you want, but it won't change that one little bit.

LA LA LA I'm not listening!

Ye gods this is insane. McCain messed up, no interpretation of his words is any different to what Cleon is stating he said. He even explicitly mentioned the constitution himself and you are just ignoring it and claiming context, gtc?

Christ. I thought you were better than that.

 

[gtc]

There you go lying again.

You can attack me all you want, but it won't change that one little bit.

Complaining that you are being 'attacked' is nonsense when you have repeatedly accused me of lying and repeatedly ignored the evidence I have provided to show you that you were misrepresenting him.

I'm not "giving" it any meaning. Words mean things, and what these words mean is something that just isn't so.

Nonsense. Context obviously matters. The complaints about the McCain camp portrayal of Obama's support for sex-education for young children proves this. The context shows that while Obama does support 'sex-ed' for young children; what he supports is age appropriate education.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Considering many of the founders were Deist's... :|

 

[leftysergeant]

We are getting nowhere here. Would one of you from the right/Republican camp care to post the supposed "Christian" elements in our founding documents and the Constitution?

Until then, just own that McCain has addressed us out the back of his trousers again.

 

[Cleon]

Complaining that you are being 'attacked' is nonsense when you have repeatedly accused me of lying and repeatedly ignored the evidence I have provided to show you that you were misrepresenting him.

You have presented no such evidence. You've merely repeated the assertion.

Assertion != evidence.
Assertion != argument.
Assertion = assertion.

Nonsense. Context obviously matters.

Who's misrepresenting whom, now? I never said context doesn't matter. Of course context matters.

But in this case, the context does not affect the accuracy--more like, the inaccuracy--of his statement that "the Constitution established the United States as a Christian nation." His later sentence about vague "Christian principles" as a foundation of the nation does not, in any way, mitigate what he said about the Constitution--which remains, as always, factually inaccurate.