No need to rewrite it. If thats what Obama said then it is a concern in the same way, but how much of a concern depends on more details from him. Does he actually claim God speaks to him as Bush has done? What context was the comment made in? etc.

I asked you to rewrite it because it doesn't make a lot of sense and I don't want to put words in your mouth like you guys do to me.

And, why again, do you keep on childishly bringing up Bush? He's not going to be on the ballot and he's not the topic of this thread - the current presidential candidates and their religion is. You guys have had 7 years of bashing on Bush - he's gone, get over it. Obama will likely be the next president. You need to look forward.

On Obama's sermon:
Source

From another source:
On Obama's Pastor from the same article:
Later in the article:

Obama's words again:

Looks like not only does he believe these tales told in the Bible, he somehow thinks they're his story too.

You'll either defend Obama, which proves you don't really have a problem with religion, except when someone you dislike adheres to that religion - showing you're intellectually inconsistent, or you'll not defend Obama, and agree with my earlier point that all you secularist and atheist liberals are fucked because the next president has as much, if not a lot more, wacko religious baggage than you could ever pretend this one has.

The short answer to your question is while he was preaching a sermon to a church in South Carolina a few months ago.

well ignoring the states, 90% of european politicians dont talk about there religion or lack of, turns out blair was a catholic, but noone really knew till he retired from office, william hague wass an atheist, other than that dont really now about any other politicians, personally i get behind politicians based on their (funnily enough) political policies, not on their religion, something that the thread starter should probably take into consideration. seeing as religion plays absolutely no part in the political process here maybe im just not getting it from the american viewpoint.

LOL, I don't care what Obama's religion is, I don't care what anyone's religion is so long as their beliefs don't prompt them to blow up innocent people, but I don't have a history of bashing on politicians over their religious beliefs. This thread is to get reactions from those who do.

Funny, I didn't see this from you when Ron Paul was being bashed over his personal beliefs.

Also, the only reason these people's religion is ever even an issue is because the media insists on asking about it. Didn't Bush's comment about God speaking to him come during an interview in Europe by a European?

BTW, Blair recently converted to Catholocism.

I must admit I wasn't aware he was such a seriously religious individual, but to me the context above suggest more of a case of 'my policies are this and that, and they coincide with what is seen by those audiences as "God's Work"', so thereby he says he can be an "instrument of God". This is to me a bit different to saying God speaks to you (ie self-appointing yourself as some kind of Messiah). Nevertheless it disturbs me a little to see politicians use people's religious beliefs to capture their votes ("he shares my faith so I'll vote for him") - but in the end that's politics I guess (at least in some countries). It leaves a slightly bad taste in my mouth, but such is life.

What's interesting is how two individuals with such vastly different policies can both be claiming (to Christians) that they represent them and their beliefs. I mean which is it, Jesus likes preemptive strikes, or he doesn't? Jesus favors national health care, or he doesn't? In the end it would be nicer all around if the religion could be set aside in politics, or at least during the campaigns.

As for quitting the Bush-bashing - don't expect it to happen soon. It will decrease after he leaves office, but its a testament to his ummmmm... 'personality' and 'intellect' that he has become a benchmark of sorts in stupidity for public figures. And that will always attract satire and rebuke, if not in a current events context, then in a historical sense. America voted him in as president (well, kinda, sorta) TWICE, and the ridicule comes with that territory.

Are you seriously suggesting Bush thinks he's a messiah?

Now that I've provided the context of Obama's statement about his religion, and being you can't let Bush go anyway, how about you provide the context of Bush's statement about saying god speaks to him. And tell me what you really think he meant by it, the way you justified Obama's "instrument of God" statement.

so you were trolling?

Dont think i ever commented in a ron paul thread

no idea, not sure what the point was either, all i could find by a quick google was that he said it to a pakistani and israli delegation


yea, i meant christian rather than catholic in my last post.

i live in sweden so guess

You guys seriously need more material. When I'm not being accused of being racist, I'm being accused of trolling. LOL How is looking for reactions trolling exactly?


That's my point.


Typical. No one knows when he said it, where he said it, what the context was, but they know exactly what it means.

well, this is the original article that drew my attention to Bush's 'faith' issues:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html
(it's quite long but a very interesting read and I think got quite a lot of publicity over there when it was published)

This is just another article I came across while googling for the above one:
George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq' | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

It's what I think of as 'interactive trolling' actually. Trolling normally means dropping bombs and siting back to watch the carnage, for enjoyment. Interactive trolling is the same thing, but with (you guessed it) interaction - remaining an active participant in the carnage. You call it shit-stirring, I call it interactive trolling. To each their own perverse pleasure I guess.

So basically any type of participation here by me will amount to some sort of trolling (you'll just invent new terms to adjust) unless I were to shift my views to liberal?

Seriously lol, you just tried to redefine a epithet so you could apply it to me because there isn't already a negative term that means "to stimulate discussion." Your deperation is palpable.

Unless there's some new rule against merely questioning a Democratic Party candidate, you can't point to one thing that is fundamentally wrong with this topic. Look through the history of this "Religion" section - you'll find its rife with examples of people casting aspersions on the religious beliefs of polititions and religious beliefs and Christians in general. I merely asked for reactions to Obama's religiosity from that segment of the membership here.

This is the weakest, most pathetic, most intellectually dishonest collection of moonbat liberals I've run across.

I never said there was anything wrong with the interactive trolling - merely that I don't get it - I have never been able to understand how people get pleasure from starting trouble - you have openly stated you do, and even made it your custom member type tag. Normal trolling I happen to see as cowardly/lame - but the interactive type is at least defensible - like I said to each their own (whatever turns you on etc). Nor did I say anything is wrong with this topic.

So please, you want to play name-calling games, go play in the forum designed for that.

whats your point? that i was inactive for a couple of months or that i dont care enough about ron paul to even read his threads? had you not added the big "@Atheists" to the thread title I probably wouldnt have read this one either, I generally avoid threads started by you, as they never come out with anything insightful or worthwhile.

you brought it up, not me, i didnt even mention bush, but regardless assuming the words are accurate theres pretty much no context it could be interpreted in any other way


yes thats right, internet trolling is a conspiracy against you to change your political views, and has nothing to do with the fact everything you do seems to be for the express purpose of being a confrontational asshat. -_-

also liberal and atheism are two entirely seperate things, im an atheist, but im not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination, however conservatism here is purely political and has nothing to do with the the social hijacking it seems to have across the atlantic.

lol

Hear that guys? You're all a bunch of pathetic idiots. According to Rasczak that is.

I wonder why Eric posts here then? Certainly it's not to listen to people. Perhaps he's a dim-witted bully that gets off on picking fights and insulting people? Or perhaps he's a flaming liberal black homosexual Muslim that's trying to make otherwise intelligent "consevatives" look like simple minded bigots.

As for the OP, I vote for Christians.

I do not consider myself an Atheist but I also do not have a strong religious belief in any Western terms, so I will comment if no one minds too terribly.
I hate to be the one to point this out, but American was founded by people escaping political and religious persecution. The two will intrinsically linked for as long as religion exists.
This, being my personal observation, has led me to two opinions.
One- A person religious beliefs are the basis for the ideas he supports. Even if a politician keeps his beliefs private they still influence his thinking.
Two- A clever politician may claim religious ideas he does or does Not believe in order to sway the opinion of any associated group.
So, based on my ideas, when Edwards says something like 'God Bless You' he is either saying for a deep rooted personal and unavoidable belief, or he is specifically reminding the majority of the religious populous that he is religious, 'Just Like They Are'.
How this may affect my vote is this- These people have PR agents that proof-read every speech and coach them on what and what not to say. Therefore, they are saying what they need to in order to appeal to their current audience while taking care not to tread on their own toes. I will pay less attention to what they say and more closely inspect the policies they've supported in the past.