Obama Slips Up About His Faith !

[Rattlesnake]

There was no swearing allegiance to any government by the apostles, however, they were taught to obey the laws of the land, (render unto Ceasar what was Ceasar's) obey those that have rule over you and to conduct themselves as christians at all times.

Whoso lives here and will not swear allegiance to this country -- should leave!

[jdcord]

I think that if some of these people who dont pledge the allegance was to be shipped over to these other coutnries that have dictators and not so much freedom , I believe when they came back to The United States there mind and philopshy on Pleding the Allegance would change.

Would you say the same of the Founding fathers, who pledged their allegiance only to a set of ideals (and to each other), and who never pledged their allegiance to an acting government (even that of the United States) because they simply didn't trust governments - even the ones that they themselves established?

Personally, I love the ideals upon which the United States was founded.  But that is just one more reason why I will not pledge allegiance to the government - a government that on a daily basis ignores, violates, and just generally "thumbs its nose" at those very ideals. 

[jdcord]

Whoso lives here and will not swear allegiance to this country -- should leave!

Why?



P.S. - by the way, I could just as easily say that anyone who dares pledge allegiance to "this country" should just go ahead and renounce Christ, because they are no longer fit to be Ambassadors from his kingdom (you can't serve two masters).  However, I try not to be that judgmental.   

[Rattlesnake]

When you say that the founding fathers did not swear allegiance to this country, you have been sadly mislead! Not only did they swear allegiance to the flag, country and it's people, they swore allegiance to the preservation of the people, the union and the Government as a whole.

It was not the Government they distrusted (they formed it) it was the people who refused to swear allegiance to this country and it's beliefs and tried to destroy the very thing America stood for ---- FREEDOM!!!!!!

I would hate to think I stood before the signers of the constitution, one's who lost their lives because they swore allegiance to this county, framed the "ONLY" government that has stood firm for the last 200+ years and shed their blood and died for its preservation - and tell them, You did not swear allegiance!!!! WOW!!!!

[Rattlesnake]

When Jesus establishes his kingdom here, I will be the first to swear allegiance, until then, I will continue to follow what has been instilled in me by God himself - to be proud of who I am, defend the place I live and to swear allegiance to the preservation of this great nation in which we live. Its called PATRIOTISM!!!!!!

Confusing patriotism and saying to be a patriot is to somehow disassociate you're self with Christ is simply wrong.

You may not swear allegiance to this country - my statement again ----- leave on the first boat you can get a ticket for.

[jdcord]

When you say that the founding fathers did not swear allegiance to this country, you have been sadly mislead! Not only did they swear allegiance to the flag, country and it's people, they swore allegiance to the preservation of the people, the union and the Government as a whole.

It was not the Government they distrusted (they formed it) it was the people who refused to swear allegiance to this country and it's beliefs and tried to destroy the very thing America stood for ---- FREEDOM!!!!!!

I would hate to think I stood before the signers of the constitution, one's who lost their lives because they swore allegiance to this county, framed the "ONLY" government that has stood firm for the last 200+ years and shed their blood and died for its preservation - and tell them, You did not swear allegiance!!!! WOW!!!!

Ummmmmmm,

Would you please go back and check your facts?  Because the founders never swore any allegiance to the government, and they did in fact distrust the very government they themselves formed - that's why they tried (in vain, unfortunately) to shackle it with all those restrictions. 

Jefferson even said that the government needed to be overturned (by the spilling of blood, via revolution) every few decades, to keep it from overstepping its bounds.   How much more distrusting of government can one get than to say that the people should routinely rise up in arms and overthrow it??  Not to mention how much allegiance could he have truly sworn to the government (that he himself was a MAJOR player in setting up) when he himself promoted the idea of routine revolutions against it??

Washington said that all government (including that of the U.S.) was "evil", and should not be trusted!  And that was WHILE he was serving as President!!


I think you are mistaking the Founders' swearing of allegiance and support to the nations' founding ideals, and to the ideals they set forth in its Constitution, for an allegiance to the government they established - but those things are in no way one and the same.

[jdcord]

You may not swear allegiance to this country - my statement again ----- leave on the first boat you can get a ticket for.

Sorry, but I refuse to do either.  What you espouse is not "patriotism";  on the contrary, it is the very definition of "nationalism".

However, an allegiance to IDEALS (instead of an allegiance to the current incarnation of the government, whatever that may be at the time) is the very kind of "patriotism" for which the founders of this country risked their very lives - and were very much willing to die in their efforts to perhaps attain those ideals (rather than live without them).  They did so for ideals, not for a government!


I happen to agree with them.  But if you do not, you have every right to disagree if you so choose.

[titushome]

When Jesus establishes his kingdom here, I will be the first to swear allegiance....

Jesus has already established His kingdom here.  That's what He meant when He announced that the kingdom of God was "at hand" - that is, it has arrived, and is among us, and every man and woman is invited to be a part of it.

[Rattlesnake]

Gentlemen,

In an effort to be rational and somewhat passive, I will leave you to you're own devices, but before I go, let me just say this:

The next time we loose thousands, don't be suprised to find that the ones who helped kill our loved ones are the ones who live among us, having been taught by so eloquent teachers that do not know what the true definition of Patriotism is and that it is somehow wrong to swear allegiance to a country so great as ours and is ok to burn our flags and help kill its inhabitants. (They used to swear on the bible to uphold this constitution)

As far as Nationalism, that is not what I was describing, only in the mind of someone who does not understand what it means to be a patriot would they confuse the 2.

You may choose to not swear allegiance to this country (or any other) but that also puts you in a posistion to have no rights, no say so as to how the country in which you live is run.

That puts you in a posistion (if this country goes to war) to be put in a place where you can do no harm to the country or its inhabitants because you cannot be trusted.

Do you really believe that the founding fathers thought it a good thing to overthrow this government occasionally? WOW!!!!  

[Rattlesnake]

When Jesus establishes his kingdom here, I will be the first to swear allegiance....

Jesus has already established His kingdom here.  That's what He meant when He announced that the kingdom of God was "at hand" - that is, it has arrived, and is among us, and every man and woman is invited to be a part of it.36Jesus answered,

My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

[yosemite]

can some one relate to me what II peter 2:10 means?

[jdcord]

Do you really believe that the founding fathers thought it a good thing to overthrow this government occasionally? WOW!!!! 

I can only read the words they themselves wrote and spoke, and it is a fact that Jefferson wrote just that.

from here:

I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.

And here are some further quotes from Jefferson concerning liberty, and that definitely relate to this discussion (taken from none other than Monticello.org, found here):

1775 June 26-July 6.  "Our attachment to no nation upon earth should supplant our attachment to liberty."  (Declaration of the Causes and Necessity for Taking Up Arms, B.1.215)

1787 Nov. 13. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." (to W. S. Smith, B.12.356)

Here are some more of Jefferson's comments preceding that second quote above (in the same letter, of course):

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.  ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?  Let them take arms.  The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them.  What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?  The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.  It is its natural manure."

So what do you say now?  ..... "WOW!" would still be good - only in a more surprised, newly enlightened type of way.     

[Chérie]

i love when people start preaching about the founding fathers. do they not know that they were the epitome of rebellion against government?

[jdcord]

can some one relate to me what II peter 2:10 means?

As with all scriptures, it must be considered in context, and with reason.  And just to clarify that:  God indeed "transcends" reason, but he doesn't disregard it completely or shred it into tiny bits to destroy it.  In fact, he even asks us to "Come let us reason together":  so reason itself is not some horrible "carnal" evil, nor is trying to understand the scriptures with (or within) reason any kind of horrible evil, either.  God gave us our brains (and our reasoning abilities) for a ....... errrrrrrrrr, ..... "reason".        :grin:    *L*


In other words, that scripture doesn't mean what you've probably been led to believe that it does.  It has to be looked at both within reason, and in context.  For instance, if you'd lived in Nazi Germany and "despised" the Nazi government for its obvious evil (as any moral person rightly should have), would that scripture then mean that your righteous disgust at that government was somehow "carnal" or "sinful" in the eyes of God?, and that in His eyes it made you "walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness"??

......... A literal, unbending interpretation of that text would make it mean just that!  But a reasonable  view and interpretation of that text would consider it in context of the entirety of the scriptures, and would realize that the whole thing really does depend on what government is specifically in question, and on exactly what specific aspect(s), act(s), or action(s) of that government one happens to be despising?


Referring once again to the simple, yet polarizing example of the Nazi government:  I find it completely unfathomable and unreasonable to think that God would have viewed the despising of (or even downright rebelling against) that government (and its horrific acts) as somehow being a "sin".  Call me crazy if you want to, but I don't consider it to even be in the realm of possibility that God would have considered that to be "wrong", much more a sin.


So in that light, the meaning of that scripture isn't quite so "black and white" now, is it?  There's a lot more subtlety to it than that.

[jdcord]

i love when people start preaching about the founding fathers. do they not know that they were the epitome of rebellion against government?

Yyyyyyyyyyyyyessssssssssss!             That is nigh unto a "You sunk my Battleship!" direct hit.


*JD gives Chérie a hearty "Hoo-Wah" for that one*           Good show, mon Chérie.    *L*

[BenJammin]

My loyalties are thus:

• God
• Family
• Country

I do not pledge allegiance to the government that rules my country, rather to the country itself and what my country means to me.  I understand that not everyone feels the same way, but don't criticize those who choose to pledge allegiance to their government, flag, or country.  By the same token, don't criticize those who don't share those values.

Maybe I am a Nationalist, I don't know.  Considering the primary definition of Nationalism is Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation - source http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalism, maybe I am.  I know that when I see the flag flying or hear "The Star Spangled Banner" my heart swells with pride, as I know without a doubt and without reservation that I live in the greatest country on earth.  Of course, I would expect that any Australian, Canadian, Brit, French, German, Russian, Angolan (insert name of any other country) to feel the same when they see their flag and hear their own national anthem.

I do not, however, blindly follow wherever my government may try to lead and I don't agree with many of the policies of the government.  To imply that I do, simply because I proclaim allegiance to country, is unjust.

BenJammin

[Brother Dad]

Why?



P.S. - by the way, I could just as easily say that anyone who dares pledge allegiance to "this country" should just go ahead and renounce Christ, because they are no longer fit to be Ambassadors from his kingdom (you can't serve two masters).  However, I try not to be that judgmental.   

I would encourage that we not get this ugly about what we feel about the country.  To make this statement shows you are being judgemental.  and does not refelct a Christ like attitude. 

[bishopnl]

Yeah, and I often slip and refer to my Catholic faith when speaking, too! *Rolls eyes*

Sis, to be fair to Obama, he's been questioned about this repeatedly.  If you had to deal with hundreds of questions regarding whether or not you were a Catholic, you might inadvertently slip up too.  

Also, as to this supposed "quote" from Obama:

'As  I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be  perceived as
taking sides,' Obama said. 'There are  a lot of people in the world to
whom the American  flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself  conveys
a war-like message. You know, the bombs  bursting in air and all. It
should be  swapped for something less parochial and less  bellicose. I
like the song 'I'd Like to Teach the  World to Sing.' If that were our
anthem, then I might  
salute it.'  

The quote is clearly fake.  I don't see how people could even look at the quote and not think that...lol...

I would encourage that we not get this ugly about what we feel about the country.  To make this statement shows you are being judgemental.  and does not refelct a Christ like attitude. 

He was being tongue in cheek as a response to all those "If you won't pledge allegiance get out of this country" comments.  I don't think he really believes that those who say the pledge are renouncing Christ. 

[titushome]

When Jesus establishes his kingdom here, I will be the first to swear allegiance....

Jesus has already established His kingdom here.  That's what He meant when He announced that the kingdom of God was "at hand" - that is, it has arrived, and is among us, and every man and woman is invited to be a part of it.

36Jesus answered,

My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

No, Jesus' kingdom is not OF this world.  But it is IN this world.

Jesus' followers understand that our true enemies are "not flesh and blood, but... spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places."  That's why Jesus said His servants wouldn't fight for Him [in the physical sense].

[Brother Dad]

Do you really believe that the founding fathers thought it a good thing to overthrow this government occasionally? WOW!!!! 

I can only read the words they themselves wrote and spoke, and it is a fact that Jefferson wrote just that.

from here:

I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.

And here are some further quotes from Jefferson concerning liberty, and that definitely relate to this discussion (taken from none other than Monticello.org, found here):

1775 June 26-July 6.  "Our attachment to no nation upon earth should supplant our attachment to liberty."  (Declaration of the Causes and Necessity for Taking Up Arms, B.1.215)

1787 Nov. 13. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." (to W. S. Smith, B.12.356)

Here are some more of Jefferson's comments preceding that second quote above (in the same letter, of course):

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.  ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?  Let them take arms.  The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them.  What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?  The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.  It is its natural manure."

So what do you say now?  ..... "WOW!" would still be good - only in a more surprised, newly enlightened type of way.     

I wonder why you can not give us the full speach and only a few lines from here ot there that changes the whole meaning.  I will grant that maybe Obama had a slip of words about what he beleived, as most people aren't sure why the believe what they are anyway.  But the fact remains that until his family became part of the system his wife was not proud to be an American.  

[Chérie]

Yeah, and I often slip and refer to my Catholic faith when speaking, too! *Rolls eyes*

Sis, to be fair to Obama, he's been questioned about this repeatedly.  If you had to deal with hundreds of questions regarding whether or not you were a Catholic, you might inadvertently slip up too.  

Also, as to this supposed "quote" from Obama:

'As  I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be  perceived as
taking sides,' Obama said. 'There are  a lot of people in the world to
whom the American  flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself  conveys
a war-like message. You know, the bombs  bursting in air and all. It
should be  swapped for something less parochial and less  bellicose. I
like the song 'I'd Like to Teach the  World to Sing.' If that were our
anthem, then I might  
salute it.'  

The quote is clearly fake.  I don't see how people could even look at the quote and not think that...lol...

I would encourage that we not get this ugly about what we feel about the country.  To make this statement shows you are being judgemental.  and does not refelct a Christ like attitude. 

He was being tongue in cheek as a response to all those "If you won't pledge allegiance get out of this country" comments.  I don't think he really believes that those who say the pledge are renouncing Christ. 

so nate, are you voting for obama now?

[Brother Dad]

can some one relate to me what II peter 2:10 means?

As with all scriptures, it must be considered in context, and with reason.  And just to clarify that:  God indeed "transcends" reason, but he doesn't disregard it completely or shred it into tiny bits to destroy it.  In fact, he even asks us to "Come let us reason together":  so reason itself is not some horrible "carnal" evil, nor is trying to understand the scriptures with (or within) reason any kind of horrible evil, either.  God gave us our brains (and our reasoning abilities) for a ....... errrrrrrrrr, ..... "reason".        :grin:    *L*


In other words, that scripture doesn't mean what you've probably been led to believe that it does.  It has to be looked at both within reason, and in context.  For instance, if you'd lived in Nazi Germany and "despised" the Nazi government for its obvious evil (as any moral person rightly should have), would that scripture then mean that your righteous disgust at that government was somehow "carnal" or "sinful" in the eyes of God?, and that in His eyes it made you "walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness"??

......... A literal, unbending interpretation of that text would make it mean just that!  But a reasonable  view and interpretation of that text would consider it in context of the entirety of the scriptures, and would realize that the whole thing really does depend on what government is specifically in question, and on exactly what specific aspect(s), act(s), or action(s) of that government one happens to be despising?


Referring once again to the simple, yet polarizing example of the Nazi government:  I find it completely unfathomable and unreasonable to think that God would have viewed the despising of (or even downright rebelling against) that government (and its horrific acts) as somehow being a "sin".  Call me crazy if you want to, but I don't consider it to even be in the realm of possibility that God would have considered that to be "wrong", much more a sin.


So in that light, the meaning of that scripture isn't quite so "black and white" now, is it?  There's a lot more subtlety to it than that.

That is certainly saying a lot of nothing.  Did you bother to think he was not talking about government of this world.  He was not talking to the Roman empire.  But he was talking to the Church and about the rebellious people in the Church.  We must understand we as Christains are part of two governments.  One is America and the other is Christ's.  We should as far as we can follow peace with all men but our main concern is the Kingdom of God.

[Brother Dad]

My loyalties are thus:

• God
• Family
• Country

I do not pledge allegiance to the government that rules my country, rather to the country itself and what my country means to me.  I understand that not everyone feels the same way, but don't criticize those who choose to pledge allegiance to their government, flag, or country.  By the same token, don't criticize those who don't share those values.

Maybe I am a Nationalist, I don't know.  Considering the primary definition of Nationalism is Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation - source http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalism, maybe I am.  I know that when I see the flag flying or hear "The Star Spangled Banner" my heart swells with pride, as I know without a doubt and without reservation that I live in the greatest country on earth.  Of course, I would expect that any Australian, Canadian, Brit, French, German, Russian, Angolan (insert name of any other country) to feel the same when they see their flag and hear their own national anthem.

I do not, however, blindly follow wherever my government may try to lead and I don't agree with many of the policies of the government.  To imply that I do, simply because I proclaim allegiance to country, is unjust.

BenJammin

This is probably the best example of how we should be about our country I have read.  Thank you.

[bishopnl]

I wonder why you can not give us the full speach and only a few lines from here ot there that changes the whole meaning.

Bro. Dad,

Any familiarity with Jefferson's writings at all would let you know he was deeply distrustful of government.  How out of context can a statement like "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing" be?

That statement, btw, was lifted from a letter Jefferson wrote to James Madison (the Father of the Constitution) shortly after Shay's rebellion. Shay's rebellion was a violent, armed uprising by farmers in Massachussetts over debts and taxes (that's the very abbreviated version of it).  

Here's the letter in it's entirety, which can also be found here.


Paris, January 30th, 1787

Thomas Jefferson Dear Sir,

My last to you was of the 16th of December; since which, I have received yours of November 25 and December 4, which afforded me, as your letters always do, a treat on matters public, individual, and economical. I am impatient to learn your sentiments on the late troubles in the Eastern states. So far as I have yet seen, they do not appear to threaten serious consequences. Those states have suffered by the stoppage of the channels of their commerce, which have not yet found other issues. This must render money scarce and make the people uneasy. This uneasiness has produced acts absolutely unjustifiable; but I hope they will provoke no severities from their governments. A consciousness of those in power that their administration of the public affairs has been honest may, perhaps, produce too great a degree of indignation; and those characters, wherein fear predominates over hope, may apprehend too much from these instances of irregularity. They may conclude too hastily that nature has formed man insusceptible of any other government than that of force, a conclusion not founded in truth or experience.

Societies exist under three forms, sufficiently distinguishable: (1) without government, as among our Indians; (2) under governments, wherein the will of everyone has a just influence, as is the case in England, in a slight degree, and in our states, in a great one; (3) under governments of force, as is the case in all other monarchies, and in most of the other republics.

To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the first condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has its evils, too, the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs.

I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.

If these transactions give me no uneasiness, I feel very differently at another piece of intelligence, to wit, the possibility that the navigation of the Mississippi may be abandoned to Spain. I never had any interest westward of the Allegheny; and I will never have any. But I have had great opportunities of knowing the character of the people who inhabit that country; and I will venture to say that the act which abandons the navigation of the Mississippi is an act of separation between the Eastern and Western country. It is a relinquishment of five parts out of eight of the territory of the United States; an abandonment of the fairest subject for the payment of our public debts, and the chaining those debts on our own necks, in perpetuum.

I have the utmost confidence in the honest intentions of those who concur in this measure; but I lament their want of acquaintance with the character and physical advantages of the people, who, right or wrong, will suppose their interests sacrificed on this occasion to the contrary interests of that part of the confederacy in possession of present power. If they declare themselves a separate people, we are incapable of a single effort to retain them. Our citizens can never be induced, either as militia or as soldiers, to go there to cut the throats of their own brothers and sons, or rather, to be themselves the subjects instead of the perpetrators of the parricide.

Nor would that country quit the cost of being retained against the will of its inhabitants, could it be done. But it cannot be done. They are able already to rescue the navigation of the Mississippi out of the hands of Spain, and to add New Orleans to their own territory. They will be joined by the inhabitants of Louisiana. This will bring on a war between them and Spain; and that will produce the question with us, whether it will not be worth our while to become parties with them in the war in order to reunite them with us and thus correct our error. And were I to permit my forebodings to go one step further, I should predict that the inhabitants of the United States would force their rulers to take the affirmative of that question. I wish I may be mistaken in all these opinions.

Yours affectionately,

Th. Jefferson

Jefferson clearly believed that the second form of government which he listed (that which the US was) was a necessary evil from which some good could result.

[bishopnl]

We must understand we as Christains are part of two governments.  One is America and the other is Christ's.  We should as far as we can follow peace with all men but our main concern is the Kingdom of God.

I've never been a "part" of the American government.  Other than my vote and my taxes, the former being the government's excuse as to how I'm a "part" and the latter being the tribute exacted by the government to empower them to break their oath of office and flaunt the Constitution.