Jan 19, 2011 -- 4:03AM, QuadFather wrote:

Thank you JoliverJOLLY, I am glad someone finally said it!

Our country was born as a place of religious freedom. It is unfortunate that some people wish to limit this freedom to only the traditions they wish to accept. The original thread of this discussion revolves around a questionably reliable source stating that Obama "admits" to being Muslim. Let's just suppose he is Muslim. Why does it matter? He should be just as free to choose his religious tradition as any of us. If the fears are based on this belief that Muslims want to rule the world (which has not been proven to apply to all Muslims in this thread), what's stopping someone from interpreting the Great Commission in Matthew as suggesting that Christians want to rule the world? I think most of those posting in this forum would agree with me that this not the intention of Matthew's passage. Likewise, I would suggest that if the Qur'an does say something in this regard, it has likely been taken out of context.

The question of what name Obama uses to refer to his God has nothing to do with his ability to effectively run our country and should not even be a matter of discussion. When JFK was running for president, people were worried because he was Catholic. They thought if he was elected, the Pope would be running our country. Kennedy was elected and we are still free from Papal rule, so it is easy to see now that this was all merely speculation and the fact of JFK's religious beliefs had no impact on his ability effectively govern.

Let's quit worrying about these petty issues like where Obama was born and what God he worships and focus on the real issues like the economy, healthcare and Don't Ask, Don't Tell!

Yeah, it's sad really but you will find that if people don't like someone they will use anything, to slag them off, and I mean anything.

Just looking at Jesus, Jesus said "Here comes John the baptist not eating and not drinking and you say he is posessed, here come I eating and drinking and you say he's a glutton and a drunk"

Some jew(that didnt like him) saw Jesus drink some wine, that's it, he a drunk, and that Jew will tell the world, ignore him he's a drunk. It happened 2000 years ago it happens still today and will continue to happen I have no doubt.

I assume, they say Obama is Muslim because of 9,11.

I suppose during the cold war they'd have called him Russian.

Some do call him commie actually don't they, some do.

-------

To answer your question, It shouldn't really. But it is also not just liking or dis-liking, there is the fear of the un-known, but also some live with-in a paradigm of coflict between right and wrong, good and bad, not to say that is not a reality but it's often squed off and becomes more about personal gain and fighting for position and really when it comes to good and bad people, only God can decide that, Jesus will Judge. We certainly need to calm down a bit and see the bigger picture which we are all a part of.

Jan 21, 2011 -- 10:37AM, drawout wrote:

Lets say for the sake of argument that he secretely is Muslim and is hideing it. The fear it tries to create is that he wont protect us from terrorists. Well he has protected us and seeems to be fighting terrorism agressively. Anybody out there denying that?

Apart from the fact that Muslims are not terrorists. There are terrorist athiests, christains, muslims, anarkists. Terrorism can come from anywhere, yet sadly you will find that most is state sponsered, generally through the security services of different contries infiltrating and then using these different groups, for there own gain.   

Feb 1, 2011 -- 7:20PM, NATAS wrote:

It is true that it is true that not all muslims are terrorists, but it is also true that the vast majority of terrorist attacks have been perpetrated by muslims, not only against non-muslims but against other muslims. There is nothing stopping Christians from carrying out terrorist activites in the name of the great commission, but why then aren't they doing so? Why isn't the great commission being "taken out of context"? . . . But I disagree that there are atheists who are terrorists.

I disagree that religious freedom is a myth. The religious freedom in this country is what allowed the Puritan to practice their beliefs. We may now disagree with many of their practices, but it was their freedom which allowed them hold those practices.

As for Muslims committing the "vast majority of terrorist attacks", this is simply an absurd statement. Throughout history there has been much more violence and terrorism committed on behalf of Christianity than Islam or any other tradition; colonization of the Americas, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition (talk about taking the Great Commission out of context!) and more recently the violence between the IRA in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and England, and this doesn't even count the abortion clinics blown up here in the U.S. It could also be argued that Timothy McVeigh had religious motives as his bombing was in retaliation to the Waco incident which was clearly religious. The Oklahoma City bombing was the worst act of terrorism perpetrated on U.S. soil until 9/11.

So, before we jump on the let's-blame-it-on-the-Muslims boat, we should look at our own history and realize that a few radicals do no speak for the entire tradition.

The bottom line is that we have the freedom to believe whatever it is that we wish to believe and have no right to judge others based on what they believe. This country WAS founded on a basis of freedom of religion regardless of who chose to practice their religion here first. It was an unforseeable consequence that some of them to took their beliefs too far and persecuted others and continue to do so even today(this includes all traditions, not just Muslims). While I agree with their freedom, I disagree with any tactic which promotes violence, judgment or presecution.

FYI - Ted Kaczynski, "the Unibomber", was atheist.