This was widely reported on FOXNEWS leading up to Easter when to no surprise, it was suggested he’d be “too busy” to attend services. The anchors did point out that in the past Reagan didn’t attend services but he had a reason and he was also a known Christian.

The One ins’t a Christian, he’s a pure poltical opportunist and a hopeful agnostic at best. He’ll make public appearances when its conveinent to him but instead of carrying a Bible like Clinton or Bush, when he HAS to talk religion he’ll take the PC route and include all just like he did to CBN News or Turkey.

http://www.cafepress.com/redstate.289713806

Found conveniently at the RedState Shop.

And while you’re there, peruse the wonderful collection of bumper stickers.

Thus endeth tonight’s commercial word. Back to your regularly scheduled program…

of anti-Christs throughout history. He may not be the big one, but then again, that’s not known by me or anyone else with absolute certainty, save for God alone. From Nero to Communism, anti-Christs have come in many forms. Now, it’s a baritone One with hopey-changey, saccharine rhetoric. One thing to take heart about is that no matter the damage inflicted by each anti-Christ, they all share one fate. They all eventually fail and do so epically.

I’m going to have to get me one of those mugs that bs suggested below. I’ll use it on campus (I work at a public 4 year university). That’ll raise some eyebrows.

Take Care, mailloux

I think Menlo (in a comment below) figured this one out. Obama seems to fit the profile of the church of liberalism that Coulter speaks about in her book, “Godless”.

Thanks for reading and the reco too!

Take Care, mailloux

as we speed toward Pentecost, where the apostles, emboldened by the Holy Spirit spoke loudly, clearly, and fearlessly, I can’t help but contrast Georgetown’s pathetic display. Who among us would allow anyone to come into our homes (and the campus is the home of the Georgetown University community) and cover the symbols most dear to us? None, but cowards I say.

Take Care, mailloux

…are they going to have to cover up Touchdown Jesus?

My jaw dropped when I read about Georgetown.

I don’t care if the man is President, this was not a matter of security. He comes to your university and asks you to suppress symbols that identify what your school is all about? How dare he. And how dare Georgetown capitulate.

Would he have done that at a mosque? I think we all know the answer to that,

is at fault here, and so is Notre Dame, and the Douglas Kmiec’s of the world who align their wills so completely with Obama’s (if only they would do the same for God!).

Take Care, mailloux

Our Founding Fathers went to great lengths to create a nation founded on the principle that each individual is endowed by his Creator with inalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. In other words you can go to work and you can worship without any government interference. Just because somebody is POTUS does not mean you have to put painted plywood over the icons symbols of your religious faith just to appease him. The arrogance of him to make the request, and the weakness of the university to obey the request is infuriating.

When somebody comes visit your house they are wrong to request that you hide any symbols of Bhudda that you have there, and you would not be a very devout Bhuddist to obey such a request.

---

Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots

Yes, I believe you are.

Look up how many time the Founders referenced the word “providence”…look at the DoI…look at the Bill of Rights.

Also you should go back and read Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists and think about the context of that letter.

When you are done doing that you should realize how utterly wrong you are.

Who grant’s the individual rights…either it is a higher power such as Bhudda or God or it is the State.

Granted we were not founded as a Theocracy that only subcribed to Christianity as a religion of the Union…but the Founders did base their concepts of Liberty, Freedom and Limited Government on Judeo-Christian principles.

Don’t remain clueless if you want to post here for any extended amount of time.

Pilgrim and Aaron replied to your comment with excellent points. I will only add this . . . I am not judging Obama’s relationship with God (whomever that may be, up to and including himself). I am judging his assault on Christianity. It is HIS administration that wanted the IHS covered up. It was Georgetown’s cowardice that allowed it. It is Obama that has publically, as POTUS, declared the end of Judeo-Christian influence in the United States during an official speech in a foreign nation no less. It is Obama that has signaled out Christianity as divisive. Whatever relationship Obama has with whatever higher power he believes in is NOT the object of this post. It is his anti-Christianity that’s the subject of the post. Those two things really are different.

I really have no idea of what Obama is, religiously speaking. He is, though, a political opportunist that has used Christianity when he perceived it could benefit him vote-wise. Now that he’s in power, I believe Obama perceives it could get in the way of his socialist utopia and like any devout commie before him, he’ll try to diminish this threat. His methods? Weaken it from within (like Georgetown and Notre Dame), diminish its stature in society, make its free expression politically incorrect, declare it divisive, diminish charitable contributions to it via tax code changes, and try to equate it with ignorance (i.e. the famous ‘clinging to religion and racism’ statement). He’s got the most powerful bully pulpit in the world and with only months into his administration, Obama is using it smashingly to try to smash Christianity.

Thank you for reading and for taking the time to comment . . . in fact, I notice my diary is your first comment on Redstate. Welcome.

Take Care, mailloux

For me, the issue at hand here is WHY Obama feels the need to constantly denegrate the Christian perspective. It makes no sense. He’s pandering to the lefties. I get that he wanted a sort of plain background for his speech at Georgetown, but slapping a piece of plywood over the name of Christ is not only gauche, but unnecessary and downright offensive.

This isn’t about making distinctions between the religious and political spheres. Nobody wants a state controlled by a church, but shunting religion off to the side (or making it a culpable party for social unrest), as has become the norm, makes it very clear that this administration is not at all interested in maintaining a fair and balanced look at the thoughts and sensibilities of the electorate as a whole.

This isn’t going to work out. The mass of anti-Christian propaganda, and just plain old lies about American history in your comments are not adding value to this site.

But, that’s not why you’re being banned. You’re being banned because you’re a troll. You’re a troll who claims not to be a Christian but comes in here and starts trying to lecture Christians on what does or doesn’t make sense in their faith.

Oh, and you miserably failed the hidden IQ test in this site that we administer to all new users.

G’bye.

has made us uniquely tolerant of all religions all speech compared to other nations.

It is Obama and Georgetown that have jumped off the ledge.

Free speech includes religious speech, but what this is really about is the following from the column:

“Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked. Part of it’s because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who’ve been all too eager to exploit what divides us.” (Source)

Faith has never driven us apart. Faith and reason was doing just fine, competing in the arena of ideas with all other speech but the radical secularists weren’t satisfied with the results so they got judges to usurp capital L Liberty and the right of self government and imposed policies on We the People that they couldn’t win majorities for in cities, states and the nation.

more later

I didn’t threaten to ban you…I don’t have that power….but nice to know that you understand you are on thin ice.

So do you really believe that throughout history Locke and Hobbes were an “island of thought” and that nothing biblical influenced them.

Oh and nice to know that I am not rational because I believe that our Founders actually believed the words they wrote in the DoI instead of them just being a political statement.

You should be happy with your man god Barry…at least until he decides that people who believe in Bhudda belong on a terrorist list.

Oh and “reply to this is” your friend…once you can thread comments correctly I might take you seriously.

Until then you are just another anti-Christian bigot to me…have a great day.

I am just suggesting that a different term be used for Zero, since anti-Christ seems a little extreme and he most certainly wouldn’t want the word Christ associated with him in any way. (Georgetown cover IHS) Plus I think this guy as way more misguided, short sighted, feeling/emotion oriented and just flat out wrong on 99.9% of what he has done to date. The 0.1% is reserved for the Navy’s actions in the first Somaliary pirates War.

So I guess no one is shutting you down…of course the night is still young…it is possible you might figure out how to “reply to this” and actually come up with a valid argument…possible…not probable.

Oh and if you are not a bigot what did you mean when you said:

Any rational person can understand the political statement being made in the preamble to the DOI.

’cause what I read says that you think anyone who doesn’t see the DoI as *just* a political statement is unreasonable….which in the topic of this discussion implies that Christians are not rational people.

So can you explain how that statement is not bigoted?