Why are Americans confused about Obama's religion?

[Greg Long]

So, just to be clear, you are in fact arguing that Obama is a good and deeply principled man? I just want to make sure I understand your position.

No I am not. I am arguing that the fact that many of you disagree with him on political matters does not in itself disqualify him from being a good and deeply principled man.

[GregH]

Greg Long wrote:

Would you care to address the actual point he made about Obama saying 20 times (or however many it was) that Presidents should use the legislative process rather than just use executive action to create law vs. when he did just that with amnesty? Would you call that an act of abiding by one’s word?

No I would not. It is not my point. I don’t know what really went on there and all the nuance and legality involved. I suspect you don’t either.

And then you admit you don’t know enough about the issue to even address it?

Here’s a Political Fact Check by the Tampa Bay Times that quibbles with the actual number of times that Republicans say Obama said he wouldn’t use executive action before doing that very thing, but overall says the Republican claim is “mostly true.” http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/mar/01/john-boehner/boehner-obama-said-22-times-he-couldnt-do-immigrat/

The same paper said that Obama’s claim that his position on using executive action on immigration hasn’t changed is “revising history” and rated the claim overall as “False.” http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/nov/20/barack-obama/barack-obama-position-immigration-action-through-e/

The Washington Post called it a “royal flip-flop.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/11/18/obamas-f…

The Miami Herald said it was a finalist for “The Lie of the Year” http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article4317856.html

Greg, there are many people who do “bash” Obama, including many Christians. No one disputes that. But just like you think many Christians jump to criticize Obama on every little thing, it seems to me that you jump to assume every Christian who criticizes Obama does so out of animosity, or because they are brainwashed by Fox News, or whatever.

The point being made above is not merely a disagreement with his policies. If that were all it was, you would be correct. But people posting are pointing out that on several issues (executive action on immigration, gay marriage, statements about his religious beliefs, etc.) he seems to have changed with the political winds. Do other politicians do that? Of course. But again, this disagreement is about MORE than just political policies.

Greg H, I agree 100% that there are many Christians who dishonor the name of Christ by recklessly making accusations. That said, that ought not insulate Mr. Obama from legitimate questions about his character and work. Are his comments about executive actions, amnesty, healthcare, and such compatible with the hypothesis of an honest man? As others have noted, no less than the Washington Post says “no”. We are not talking about Rush making these accusations, but rather a paper where probably 90% of the writing and editorial staff voted for the man. In the same way, when we look at the claim that Obama is a devoted family man, his habit of vacationing separately from his family seems to be an interesting point of reference.

[Greg Long]

GregH wrote:

Greg Long wrote:

Would you care to address the actual point he made about Obama saying 20 times (or however many it was) that Presidents should use the legislative process rather than just use executive action to create law vs. when he did just that with amnesty? Would you call that an act of abiding by one’s word?

No I would not. It is not my point. I don’t know what really went on there and all the nuance and legality involved. I suspect you don’t either.

So someone made a very specific point about a very specific issue on which it certainly appear Obama has been less than principled, and rather than interact with the argument, you continue to insist that those disagreeing with Obama on this thread do so because they have some kind of hatred of him, or whatever.

And then you admit you don’t know enough about the issue to even address it?

Here’s a Political Fact Check by the Tampa Bay Times that quibbles with the actual number of times that Republicans say Obama said he wouldn’t use executive action before doing that very thing, but overall says the Republican claim is “mostly true.” http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/mar/01/john-boehner/boehner-obama-said-22-times-he-couldnt-do-immigrat/

The same paper said that Obama’s claim that his position on using executive action on immigration hasn’t changed is “revising history” and rated the claim overall as “False.” http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/nov/20/barack-obama/barack-obama-position-immigration-action-through-e/

The Washington Post called it a “royal flip-flop.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/11/18/obamas-fl…

The Miami Herald said it was a finalist for “The Lie of the Year” http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article4317856.html

Greg, there are many people who do “bash” Obama, including many Christians. No one disputes that. But just like you think many Christians jump to criticize Obama on every little thing, it seems to me that you jump to assume every Christian who criticizes Obama does so out of animosity, or because they are brainwashed by Fox News, or whatever.

The point being made above is not merely a disagreement with his policies. If that were all it was, you would be correct. But people posting are pointing out that on several issues (executive action on immigration, gay marriage, statements about his religious beliefs, etc.) he seems to have changed with the political winds. Do other politicians do that? Of course. But again, this disagreement is about MORE than just political policies.

As Ronald Reagan would say, there you go again…

First of all, I will jump on my bandwagon for a second. You want me to debate the nuance of Obama and amnesty. Yes I admit I am not an expert on that and neither are you. I am not going to armchair quarterback it. It blows my mind that people think they are qualified to speak authoritatively on complex issues like amnesty when their knowledge is limited to cable news and other news sources. It is postmodernist in the worst way. Do you want to start telling brain surgeons how to do their job too?

Instead of building your elaborate strawmen and then arguing against them, why not focus on the one point I am trying to make? One more time, this is the point I am making:

It actually is possible for someone to be a good, principled person even if you disagree with them, even on major issues.

That is a foundational truth that has largely been forgotten. Polarization is an immature thing and it is a dangerous thing.

[Bert Perry]

Greg H, I agree 100% that there are many Christians who dishonor the name of Christ by recklessly making accusations. That said, that ought not insulate Mr. Obama from legitimate questions about his character and work. Are his comments about executive actions, amnesty, healthcare, and such compatible with the hypothesis of an honest man? As others have noted, no less than the Washington Post says “no”. We are not talking about Rush making these accusations, but rather a paper where probably 90% of the writing and editorial staff voted for the man. In the same way, when we look at the claim that Obama is a devoted family man, his habit of vacationing separately from his family seems to be an interesting point of reference.

Bert, I’m sorry but I do not for one second think it is fair or right to make insinuations about Obama’s character because of the separate vacations. Furthermore, based on what I have heard, I suspect Obama spends more time with his family and is more engaged than many of us. I think I read he eats dinner with them most evenings for example.

I don’t know if that is true. Could be just spin. That is the point. I don’t know what their family life is like. I am not going to throw stones at it.

[GregH]

Greg Long wrote:

GregH wrote:

Greg Long wrote:

Would you care to address the actual point he made about Obama saying 20 times (or however many it was) that Presidents should use the legislative process rather than just use executive action to create law vs. when he did just that with amnesty? Would you call that an act of abiding by one’s word?

No I would not. It is not my point. I don’t know what really went on there and all the nuance and legality involved. I suspect you don’t either.

So someone made a very specific point about a very specific issue on which it certainly appear Obama has been less than principled, and rather than interact with the argument, you continue to insist that those disagreeing with Obama on this thread do so because they have some kind of hatred of him, or whatever.

And then you admit you don’t know enough about the issue to even address it?

Here’s a Political Fact Check by the Tampa Bay Times that quibbles with the actual number of times that Republicans say Obama said he wouldn’t use executive action before doing that very thing, but overall says the Republican claim is “mostly true.” http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/mar/01/john-boehner/boehner-obama-said-22-times-he-couldnt-do-immigrat/

The same paper said that Obama’s claim that his position on using executive action on immigration hasn’t changed is “revising history” and rated the claim overall as “False.” http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/nov/20/barack-obama/barack-obama-position-immigration-action-through-e/

The Washington Post called it a “royal flip-flop.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/11/18/obamas-fl…

The Miami Herald said it was a finalist for “The Lie of the Year” http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article4317856.html

Greg, there are many people who do “bash” Obama, including many Christians. No one disputes that. But just like you think many Christians jump to criticize Obama on every little thing, it seems to me that you jump to assume every Christian who criticizes Obama does so out of animosity, or because they are brainwashed by Fox News, or whatever.

The point being made above is not merely a disagreement with his policies. If that were all it was, you would be correct. But people posting are pointing out that on several issues (executive action on immigration, gay marriage, statements about his religious beliefs, etc.) he seems to have changed with the political winds. Do other politicians do that? Of course. But again, this disagreement is about MORE than just political policies.

As Ronald Reagan would say, there you go again…

First of all, I will jump on my bandwagon for a second. You want me to debate the nuance of Obama and amnesty. Yes I admit I am not an expert on that and neither are you. I am not going to armchair quarterback it. It blows my mind that people think they are qualified to speak authoritatively on complex issues like amnesty when their knowledge is limited to cable news and other news sources. It is postmodernist in the worst way. Do you want to start telling brain surgeons how to do their job too?

[GregH] Instead of building your elaborate strawmen and then arguing against them, why not focus on the one point I am trying to make? One more time, this is the point I am making:

It actually is possible for someone to be a good, principled person even if you disagree with them, even on major issues.

[GregH]

Bert, I’m sorry but I do not for one second think it is fair or right to make insinuations about Obama’s character because of the separate vacations. Furthermore, based on what I have heard, I suspect Obama spends more time with his family and is more engaged than many of us. I think I read he eats dinner with them most evenings for example.

I don’t know if that is true. Could be just spin. That is the point. I don’t know what their family life is like. I am not going to throw stones at it.

Greg, how a man uses his time is an indication of his priorities, just like how he uses his money. 200 rounds of golf, over 400 fundraisers, regular trips as part of his job…..and he’s still vacationing separately? Really? And you don’t think this says anything about his priorities and whether he’s actually a devoted family man? My take is that yes, he’s still married and does spend some time with his family, but his calendar suggests to me that he’s got other priorities in life.

Here’s another one from the Washington Post about Obama’s statements about the Keystone pipeline proposal. Four Pinnochios from the WashPo. Sad to say, Mr. Obama is making Mr. Clinton look honest in comparison, which is something of an achievement.

[Bert Perry]

Greg H, I agree 100% that there are many Christians who dishonor the name of Christ by recklessly making accusations. That said, that ought not insulate Mr. Obama from legitimate questions about his character and work. Are his comments about executive actions, amnesty, healthcare, and such compatible with the hypothesis of an honest man? As others have noted, no less than the Washington Post says “no”. We are not talking about Rush making these accusations, but rather a paper where probably 90% of the writing and editorial staff voted for the man. In the same way, when we look at the claim that Obama is a devoted family man, his habit of vacationing separately from his family seems to be an interesting point of reference.

For 50 years, my aunt and uncle took separate vacations. I thought it was strange, but they were both very independent and enjoyed different things. Their 3 boys (my cousins) grew up fine. One is a lawyer, one is a mechanical engineer, and one is a professor at Tennessee St. University. All three of them love God and their families.

Greg H,

I might have agreed with you about Obama being a principled man one year ago. However, since the midterm elections where he lost the Senate (which of course in theory limits his powers), he has shown that he will do whatever it takes to get his way. The lies and the executive action are two of the main ways that Obama has demonstrated that this is not just about disagreement. He is showing that he cannot govern unless he is in control.

Alot of truth even in this SNL spoof of School House Rock, Obama and his abuse of Executive Order: (Warning….a little bit of inappropriate language) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUDSeb2zHQ0

[Bert Perry]

GregH wrote:

Bert, I’m sorry but I do not for one second think it is fair or right to make insinuations about Obama’s character because of the separate vacations. Furthermore, based on what I have heard, I suspect Obama spends more time with his family and is more engaged than many of us. I think I read he eats dinner with them most evenings for example.

I don’t know if that is true. Could be just spin. That is the point. I don’t know what their family life is like. I am not going to throw stones at it.

Greg, how a man uses his time is an indication of his priorities, just like how he uses his money. 200 rounds of golf, over 400 fundraisers, regular trips as part of his job…..and he’s still vacationing separately? Really? And you don’t think this says anything about his priorities and whether he’s actually a devoted family man? My take is that yes, he’s still married and does spend some time with his family, but his calendar suggests to me that he’s got other priorities in life.

Here’s another one from the Washington Post about Obama’s statements about the Keystone pipeline proposal. Four Pinnochios from the WashPo. Sad to say, Mr. Obama is making Mr. Clinton look honest in comparison, which is something of an achievement.

To put my cards on the table, I think Obama is a typical politician and I consider politicians as a whole to tend toward dishonesty these days. I have trouble respecting him as a person or for that matter, hardly any politicians. To me, politics has become a dishonest game entirely and the people that are successful are playing the game. I think a lot of politicians are probably deeply principled but play the game dishonestly.

That being said, the other side crucifies him for playing golf (200 rounds in 6 years? Big deal… I know plenty of people that play way more than that) or for the number of fundraisers as if their side does not do the same thing. Seriously, people would begrudge him for playing golf? Give me a break. Look how much he (and every other president) ages while president. Give them a few hours a week to play golf. The fundraising is despicable but again, who doesn’t do it? And since most of you don’t believe Obama is capable of doing anything good, why would you not want him playing golf and fundraising every day so he is not messing up more stuff?

Greg, I agree that it is not killer that Obama golfs a lot and does a lot of fundraising. Like you say, there is regrettably some truth to the notion that the world would be a better place if he golfed every day and didn’t even try to do his job. My point, however, is very narrow; whether it works out well (Joel’s example) or poorly (some cases I know of), spending vacations apart, especially after demanding jobs involving a lot of separation, indicates that there is something higher on Obama’s priority list than family life.

[GregH]

No, that is not what he did. What he did is make the claim that because Obama has a different view of welfare than he does, he can’t possibly be deeply principled.

Greg, if you re-read my post, you’ll see that the first paragraph addresses “helping the disadvantaged.” The second paragraph addresses “deeply principled.” I struggle to see how anyone could honestly arrive at the conclusion about those two paragraphs that you did. Really disappointing.

[KD Merrill]

GregH wrote:

No, that is not what he did. What he did is make the claim that because Obama has a different view of welfare than he does, he can’t possibly be deeply principled.

Greg, if you re-read my post, you’ll see that the first paragraph addresses “helping the disadvantaged.” The second paragraph addresses “deeply principled.” I struggle to see how anyone could honestly arrive at the conclusion about those two paragraphs that you did. Really disappointing.

KD, you are right. I see how you structured that now and missed it before. I apologize.