True, Obama has the right to freedom of expression as does everyone in the United States.
I'm not talking about Obama's freedom of expression. I'm talking about the First Amendment and what it means to all of us.
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.
With respect to religion, the First Amendment contains two important prongs: Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The first prong is known as the Establishment Clause. The second is known as the Free Exercise Clause. They go hand in hand. Just as some say the Bible and the Book of Mormon establish two sources that serve a common end, the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause serve a common purpose.
The Establishment Clause keeps government out of the business of religion. Some say it means the government can't "establish" a religion. In fact, it means a bit more than that. Government can't favor a particular religion. It can't make any law "respecting an establishment of religion," which is to say it can't try to put one faith or sect or group ahead of another. The Free Exercise Clause says government can't interfere with the "free exercise" of religion.
If you think about it, the two prohibitions go hand in hand. In a world of competing faiths, to promote one is to hobble another. That doesn't mean that religious people shouldn't serve in government any more than politicians should stop going to church. But the experience in Europe, where government did try to foster one while crushing the other, led to civil wars and the suppression of religious freedoms. America's heritage includes the story of the Pilgrims and Puritans, as well as the Quakers and Pennsylvania Dutch, along with English Catholics who settled in Maryland and signed the Act of Tolerance.
America does have a heritage of faith. There's no question about it. And the vast majority of those who came to America, during its colonial days, were Church of England, with some Pilgrim Separatists, Puritans, Quakers, New Jersey Baptists, Connecticut Presbyterians and even a smattering of Jews and Muslims. But that doesn't make America a "Christian nation" so much as a nation of mostly Christians. There's a huge difference between acknowledging that most Americans are some sort of Christian - though that number includes a great many sects (such as Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, Christian Scientists, Pentecostals and the like) who weren't around at the time of the Founding. It also includes people of other faiths, including Unitarians, Native Americans, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and even the faithless Atheists and Agnostics.
At the time of the Founding, it was a bit dangerous to admit of being a skeptic, which is why more secular thinking was couched in the terms and phrases of Deism, a belief system acknowledging the existence of God as the great architect of the universe, but shying away from more sectarian views of God, including God's personal involvement with the world. Jefferson peppered the Declaration of Independence with relgious language, but it was Deistic banter. He didn't speak of God. He spoke of "nature's God." He adopted the safe verbal banter of the Enlightenment but his distrust of religion and government were noteworthy. Jefferson created what has since been called the Jeffersonian Bible, which consisted of a New Testament editing out anything and everything supernatural. Jefferson believed that Jesus was a great moral teacher. He didn't believe that Jesus was the Son of God. He and James Marshall opposed goverment sponsorship of religion. Washington, who was a Freemason and filled with Enlightenment ideas, exchanged angry letters with an Anglican Bishop who took offense at the fact that Washington would attend church services but get up right before the administration of the sacrament. Washington would leave rather than partake of a sacrament he didn't believe in. He considered doing otherwise to be dishonest.
Of course, there were plenty of other Founders who were quite religious, though I think the point is made when you consider the reservations of Washington (the first president), Jefferson (author of the Declaration of the Independence), Marshall (the Father of the Constitution) and even Benjamin Franklin whose Quaker background didn't prevent him from living a very different life. The point is not that the United States is an un-Christian nation, or a nation opposed to Christianity, but that to call it a "Christian nation" is to attempt to slide in something that was never there to begin with.
While there were certainly religious people who came to America to obtain freedom of religion, the United States was never set up to be a theocracy. It was set up to be a democracy, one tempered by a republican form of government and constitutional divisions of power, the establishment of due process and the protection of individual liberties. You can cherry pick religious stories to speak of the various religious dreams of different groups, but for every Massachusetts, there's a Virginia, whose pioneers came in search of land and wealth. For every Pennsylvania, there's a Carolina or a Georgia or a New York.
What Obama said about America - as not being a Christian nation or a Muslim nation or a Jewish nation, but a nation of citizens with ideals - is dead-on right. Majority rule does not mean that the religious group with the biggest numbers gets to take the capital. That was the point of the First Amendment. Jewish people can live in America and have the same rights as their Christian neighbors. So can Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and even skeptics. Should any group have fewer rights because they don't belong to the religion with the biggest numbers?
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the U.S. is a Christian nation. The only reference to religion is in the date of ratification, where the framers signed it "in the year of the Lord," which is a fancy way of signing a date (Gregorian Monks invented the system of dating we use to number the years). In fact, the Constitution specifies that there are to be no religious tests and the First Amendment makes clear that the new government is not to Establish religion or prevent its Free Exercise. The U.S. Constitution is based on Enlightenment principles of divided sovereignty, consent of the governed, due process, checks and balances, et cetera.
Why would the president go over to a country like Turkey, which struggles to maintain a secular constitution rather than a religious one based on Muslim Sharia law, and say, "We're a Christian nation"? It would be stupid to do so. If anything, he was praising Turkey for attempting to maintain a separation between Church and State. In a truly enlightened society, all would be free to adopt the religion of their choice. The power and mechanisms of the state would not be used to give one group a little extra hand while suppressing others. Obama's point was that, in America, no group holds the reigns of power. Our system is not a theocracy. It is not the state of the religious group with the most voters. It is a shared, common, system where we respect each other as citizens. Each is free to choose their own path. We govern according to mutual interests and the common welfare. We don't use the state to put one group ahead of another.
That's the First Amendment issue of which I spoke, not Obama's right to speak his mind. I was speaking of the Freedom of Religion, not the Freedom of Speech.
Obama said that the United States was no longer a Judao-Christian nation. To me that speaks volumes. In my opinion, the president of the United States should not slander the nation that he represents. I am not the only one that feels this way.
For someone who speaks of slander, you need to get your facts straight. Obama never said the United States "was no longer a Judeo-Christian nation." That's what you and your little partisan nitwits have done to spin something the president did say into something he didn't. Here's what the president said:
One of the great strengths of the United States is, although as I've mentioned, we have a very large Christian population -- we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.
The statement, which was impromptu and part of a press conference in Turkey, was never that the U.S. used to be a Christian nation, or a Judeo-Christian nation, but no longer is. It was a sweet, innoccuous, statement that in America, no one group owns the state. How it is that such statements get bent and twisted into other things is utterly fascinating, but no person who repeats such spin is in any position to accuse someone else of slander.
Shame on you. Or better yet, shame on those who try to manipulate you through lies and half-truths.
How do I know what the president meant? Well, for one thing, I can read. I don't add little spin words to a speech and I don't let Fox News or some other spin doctor explain it to me like I'm a nine-year-old. More specifically, I can read what the president has been saying to folks in the Middle East who don't trust us because they consider us a "Judeo-Christian nation," and therefore anti-Muslim.
Did you bother to read what the president said in Cairo, when he gave that great speech to the Muslim world? If you had read that speech, you'd understand these off-the-cuff remarks, because the president's mind wasn't any different there than it is here. I suspect you don't trouble yourself with such things, so I've included a few tidbits from that speech.
We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world - tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars . . . .
Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust. So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.
I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings . . . .
But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do - to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.
Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.
As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam - at places like Al-Azhar University - that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.
I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers - Thomas Jefferson - kept in his personal library.
So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.
But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words - within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."
Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores - that includes nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average.
Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.
So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations - to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.
****
The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.
In Ankara, I made clear that America is not - and never will be - at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.
The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.
Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.
That's why we're partnering with a coalition of forty-six countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths - more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism - it is an important part of promoting peace.
****
And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.
****
The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world. America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.
Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed - more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction - or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews - is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.
On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people - Muslims and Christians - have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.
****
Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding . . . .
At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.
****
America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.
****
America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.
There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments - provided they govern with respect for all their people.
This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.
The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.
Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.
Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of another's. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld - whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.
Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.
Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit - for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.
Indeed, faith should bring us together. That is why we are forging service projects in America that bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That is why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's Interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into Interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action - whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.
The sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights.
I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.
****
Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity - men and women - to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.
****
The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world we seek - a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.
I know there are many - Muslim and non-Muslim - who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort - that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country - you, more than anyone, have the ability to remake this world.
All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort - a sustained effort - to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.
It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples - a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.
We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.
The Holy Koran tells us, "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."
The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."
The Holy Bible tells us, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."
The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you.
Obama said that the United States was no longer a Judao-Christian nation. To me that speaks volumes. In my opinion, the president of the United States should not slander the nation that he represents. I am not the only one that feels this way.
True, Obama has the right to freedom of expression as does everyone in the United States. But again, and this is just my opinion, I feel that a Christian would not say something that is insulting as that remark was. Others may feel differently about the matter. They may not think that what he said was out of line or insulting. But I do. And again, that is just my opinion.
DesertLady, did Obama say the the US is not exclusively a Judeo-Christian country or the he himself was not a Christian. One seems like something deemed true by the constitution and the other would seem foolish to say.
I too am a Christian. And how do you know just what Obama meant by what he said? His words were very clear to me. And yes I have read the first Amendment. Occasionally I go back and read the Constitution to refresh my memory as I am getting older and often have to go back and reread things. Yes, Obama has the right to freedom of expression, but proclaiming that we are no longer a Judao Christian nation was a slap in the face of what our forefathers fought and died for. I don't recall bearing false witness against anybody. Obama said what he said. I merely gave my opinion on what he said. If you believe in Obama and what he stands for that is your right. Just as it is my right to disagree with him. By disagreeing with him, does not mean I have broken any commandments. Perhaps you should read in Matthew where it says, "Judge not that ye be not judged." I was not judging Obama, I was just making a rational decision based on words that came out of his own mouth.
Senator Forbes seemed to thing Obama was out of line with this statement also. Did you even watch the video? The Bible says by their fruits you shall know them. I am only going by Obama's fruits that he has shown since he has been in office.
My statement was not an attack on you so why did you jump on my post with all four feet? I, too, have the same right according to the first amendment as Obama and any one else does. Just because I say something you don't like does not mean you have the right to insult me as you did. Your post was very caustic and I do not appreciate the tone of it. If you cannot speak to me in a more cordial manner, please refrain from replying to my posts unless it is one that is posted directly at you.
I think it was a good idea for President Monson to visit Obama and give him that gift. I, personally, do not like Obama especially since he said that the United States was not a Judao (spelling?) Christian Nation. I am posting a link below. I hope it is functional. If not, please copy and paste it into your browser address line and hear what Senator Forbes had to say about the matter. During his campaign, I was told that Obama was a Christian. But it would seem to me, that a true Christian would not make such a statement, as this country was founded on the basis of religious freedom and our motton is In God We Trust.
Are you that easy to manipulate? Did you read the story from which it was taken or just some idiot blog posted by a partisan as part of a well-organized attempt to demonize the president? I might as well conclude that you're no Christian, or at least a stranger to the Bible, since your Ten Commandments doesn't go to ten, not without, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
Obama was in Turkey. Turkey is a nation that straddles both the Middle East and Europe. Turkey is a country with Christians and Muslims. Turkey is a country that has tried very hard not to be like the hardliners. One of the great controversies over there is having a secular constitution, rather than Sharia (hardline Muslim) law. The enemies of the secular, tolerant, constitution were arguing that the United States was not to be trusted, that the U.S. was a "Judeo-Christian" nation, meaning a nation that favors Jews and Christians, to the detriment of Muslims.
Obama was trying to say that our law treats all equally. I'm sure you've hear of the First Amendment. Try reading it sometime. This is what Obama said to the enemies of America:
"One of the great strengths of the United States is ... we have a very large Christian population -- we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."
That was hardly a statement against Christianity. You, and your idiot partisan nitwit lying right-wing lugnuts, owe the president an apology. You have misrepresented both his words and his intentions. Don't lecture me about being a Christian until you learn to act like one.
I think it was a good idea for President Monson to visit Obama and give him that gift. I, personally, do not like Obama especially since he said that the United States was not a Judao (spelling?) Christian Nation. I am posting a link below. I hope it is functional. If not, please copy and paste it into your browser address line and hear what Senator Forbes had to say about the matter. During his campaign, I was told that Obama was a Christian. But it would seem to me, that a true Christian would not make such a statement, as this country was founded on the basis of religious freedom and our motton is In God We Trust.
In the spirit of political "bipartisanship" I will keep my comments postive. I will acknowlege that Obama is very good at running political campaigns, and he is very good at navigating the muddy waters of the political scene in Washington. That being said, I agree with Bill in that this is more of a political statement more than anything else. Do I really think it will make a difference in the long run? Not really, but it certainly is a nice gesture on the part of the Church.
The giving of a gift like this is a form of tribute, short of either bribery or endorsement. It's a gesture of respect. The Church wants its rights protected under a new administration. The President wants as much of an endorsement as possible, to gain access to and influence upon the votes and wallets of the church's membership. Both parties gain status conferral by a shared photo-op.
I'm sure Obama's people know that Utah is solidly Republican and that it voted for McCain by a wide margin, but there are opportunities for making gains in "enemy territory." In 2008, McCain won his "home" state of Arizona but a number of key states flipped, including Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Ohio - and three western states: Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico. It was to be expected that Arizona would vote for its favorite son, but when three of the six states bordering Utah flip like that, it presents an opportunity. The West isn't worth much, electorally. The big numbers are on the Pacific coast, and they're all solidly Democrat. But being an adroit basketball player, Obama knows the importance of the Book-of-Mormon admonition "by small things are great things brought to pass." The relatively empty mountain west presents an opportunity for a little electoral padding as well as big chunks of blue on the electoral map. Breaking up the solid mass of red - from south to west - was a major feat for a man once dismissed as a mere "community organizer."
For both parties, the photo op was also an opportunity to reach beyond differences. The Church's token genealogy gift (which was presented to Obama's predecessors) is a reminder of the Church's focus on family as well as a light hand of friendship. It's no secret that Utah's solid vote for McCain (with Obama losing all but three counties - Summit, Grand and Salt Lake) reflects how far Obama would have to go to win Utah over. Was it just because he was a black man in a state dominated by a church that didn't give black Mormons equal rights until 1978? Probably not, given Utah's long history of going Republican - election after election. Obama's biggest win was Salt Lake County, by a margin of one-tenth of one percent. McCain still took the state by a whopping 62% but, compared to 2004, it's actually a shift. Bush took the state by 71%. Kerry's showing was 26%, eight points below Obama's. In 2004, the Democrats didn't win a single county. To win even three, in 2008, represents progress for their side, especially when one of those counties - Salt Lake - represents the largest group of voters in the state.
As I've mentioned before, there is a need for fence mending. Utah's love affair with the Republican Party - and its influence on church-state relations under the Bush administration - has created a potential issue, now that the shoe is on the other foot. Back in 2000, the Republicans owned the White House and both houses of Congress. Now, the Democrats do. What might have seemed advisable - in terms of cozying up to the Republicans - is now ill-fated. It's a basic political truism that the district of the mayor's biggest rival is usually the last to see road improvements. Sun Tzu advised his general to give spoils to the conquering troops. Since Andrew Jackson, the "spoils system" has been a prominent part of the political changing of the guard. The last guy you want to be is the one who spent his resources trying to keep the new king from coming to power.
This is particularly important when you consider that 57% of Utah belongs to the federal government. The policies of the BLM and the Department of the Interior affect Utah's economy, both in terms of what is mined and where cattle are grazed. Past conflicts over land management are one reason Utahns trend so heavily toward the Republican Party and its message of limited government and states' rights. (Of course, it doesn't hurt that the state was invaded by the federal government under James Buchanan, a Democrat, though much of the later persecution of the Church occurred under the aegis of the Republicans and statehood was granted, in 1896, during the administration of Grover Cleveland, another Democrat.)
If I were a Utahn, I would want to make nice to the Democrats. If I were Obama, I'd want to do what I could to plant some seeds. It would be quite a coup if Utah went Democrat in 2012 but then again, it was quite a coup that Obama flipped three of its neighbors in 2008.
Family histories have been provided to Bush, Jr & Clinton. I wonder if this is just becoming something that will go forward with all presidents.
All politics aside, I think it is cool. I think what the Obamas have received is truly a treasure, and it is something that can be passed down for may generations.
It's nice to see the 'common' human side of both Presidents' Monson & Obama.
