Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Praying for Obama Care

It wasn’t too long ago when we were hearing indignation from the likes of Tretheway, Snider, Thackeray and the rest of academics that were offended because they had to endure a 2 minute prayer at the state sanctioned college commencement. I have waited for over a week now and I have not hear one peep from anyone at this blog about President Obama having sought the help of thousands of faith-based pastors and people to preach the gospel of Obama Care to their congregations. Is preaching Obama Care from the pulpit somehow different than hearing a prayer at a secular graduation? Is hearing a sermon on the wonders of this nationalized health plan in our places of worship less offensive than when Representative Warburton spoke from the pulpit on the right to life topic? Obama “instructed faith leaders to use their perches of power” to convey his message to their congregations according to Politico.com. See the whole article here.

I guess our local liberals are all like former Democrat Chairman Boycotter Friede. It is all about to which political party they pledge allegiance to whether or not something can be deemed offensive.

Who’d a thunk it?  (quick - call the ACLU)

26 comments:

  1. Your comparing apples to oranges

    This is different because a democrat is the one that is wanting to mix church and state so that automatically makes it A-OK

    ReplyDelete
  2. Is preaching Obama Care from the pulpit somehow different than hearing a prayer at a secular graduation?

    Yes, quite different in fact. Unless of course the church is publicly funded. Good grief.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Be prepared, all of the Dummycrats are gearing up to save us all before election time. Isn't it amazing how much they seem to care all of a sudden. They can see that their give away programs are not setting well with the people, so in order to keep control they are turning anywere they can for support. November won't come soon enough.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Seperation of church and state" is the rally cry of those who were offendeed by the prayer at MSUN. But isn't urging "church" to promote a "state" issue included in the seperation?
    No, not in the eyes of the left. Seperation is only when that arguement is convenient. Keep church out of government, but it's ok for government to be in the church when that arguement is convenient.
    Gotta love the flexiblity to argue both ways.

    ReplyDelete
  5. But isn't urging "church" to promote a "state" issue included in the seperation?

    It is entirely up to the church.

    Are you suggesting that Churches are prevented from preaching whatever they want or should be? That's definitely what it sounds like.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  7. to nomorelies i don't know where you and all your rich republican buddies get off thinking that the democrats created the mess we are in because it wasn't,we had it passed to us from all the greedy oil mongers you want to call leaders,and if you're tired of hearing it was bush and cheneys fault its for good reason.Maybe you would be happy with soup lines like in the great depression.you could drive by them on your way to the golf course you dummy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Zack White I totally agreed with the part of your comment where you said that ..........“The only 'separation of church and state' is the part of the first amendment that states 'Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion or limiting the free exercise thereof.' This clause has nothing to do with talking about government in religion.........

    But I do take exception to your statement ........“And if this were offensive, then how about republicans using the pulpit to push views on gay marriage, abortion rights?“..........

    Well Zack if you would look back at the old issues of the Havre Daily you would know that several Democrats did take offense to Republican Representative Wendy Warburton speaking from the pulpit about right to life. You would also find that Tretheway and others took enough offense at a 20 second prayer at the college graduation to actually file a complaint with the ACLU. Why is that any different than this Obama story?

    At least you are going to fit in perfectly at our home town newspaper because you have the same biases as they do. So much for any hope of fair and balanced reporting from you

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oh great Zack. Now that someone challenges your biased thinking you delete your post?????????????

    Way to run and hide............welcome to Havre

    ReplyDelete
  10. just another example of "Don't do as I do but rather do as I tell you" There are hypocrites that never attend church also

    How do you see the deleted post from Zach Freddy?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Just check the "e-mail followup comments" box below and everyones comments will be e-mailed directly to you. In this case even if the person commenting later decides his comment may not portray him as an unbiased news reporter and goes fraidy cat you have already seen his liberal stance

    ReplyDelete
  12. My stance is not a liberal one.

    I just want people to be fair.

    I didn't say that people didn't get upset about Warburton taking the pulpit. I just want this to be viewed the same as the Obama issue brought up in the post. Because it is the exact same thing.

    And I didn't delete my post "to go fraidy cat." I deleted it because I thought I wanted to avoid accusations like:

    "At least you are going to fit in perfectly at our home town newspaper because you have the same biases as they do. So much for any hope of fair and balanced reporting from you"

    I think it's unfair to automatically write off the integrity of anything I will ever do because I attempt to compare two similar events.

    I regret deleting my comment. If you'd like to repost it, I wouldn't mind in the slightest.

    I'd much rather participate in any sort of dialogue than engage in the antagonism that seems to go on here.
    The subtle name-calling.
    The cynical sarcastic attitude.

    Let's just talk. It's what the internet is for.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It is entirely up to the church.

    Are you suggesting that Churches are prevented from preaching whatever they want or should be? That's definitely what it sounds like.
    ************************************
    No, that's not what I said or suggested. That's what you made up to change the subject. As a reminder what the discussion was about, it was in reference to Obama urging the clergy to promote his healthcare program.
    It sounds like you might agree with me that if a clergy member wishes to discuss issues that are political in nature, that is their right. Do you still support that if the same clergy member were supporting pro-life candidates, though?
    The issue isn't that a clergy was voicing an opinion, it was that the "state" leader was encouraging it.
    A bigger issue in my mind is that as you may recall, the healthcare bill did pass already. So exactly what is the president encouraging the clergy to do just before an election? Would he be stumping for one particular party? Is that something that you think is appropriate? And is it just appropriate because you happen to agree with Obama or would(will) it be alright with you when the next Republican president gets into office, too?

    ReplyDelete
  14. fed up,
    Do you give Obama a complete pass when it comes to being BP's biggest donation recipient? How about him opening up more deep water exploration just before the BP disaster? Does he get a complete pass for being just as much in bed with the oil companies a GW & Chenney?

    ReplyDelete
  15. To Fed Up. "Dummy" It's one sided thinking people like you that that are the dummies! Do you honestly think that there is anybody, Republican or Democrat, that haven't lined their pockets in the last 20 years with taxpayer money. They are all equally to blame! It just happens to be the Dems turn.

    ReplyDelete
  16. to nomorelies;I'll agree to that,they are all deceptive.
    To thinker;I dont give obama a free pass but i'll say this if mcain and (drill baby drill palin)would have got elected we would of had the same spill.

    ReplyDelete
  17. That's what you made up to change the subject.

    No, I responded to your comment and asked a question that arose from your comment. If you don't like being questioned on your statements, tough.

    Do you still support that if the same clergy member were supporting pro-life candidates, though?

    Absolutely. It is their (the Churches) choice what they wish to support/preach about.

    The issue isn't that a clergy was voicing an opinion, it was that the "state" leader was encouraging it.

    And it's truly a non-issue. What was happening here is some were trying to conflate this issue with the issue at Northern that the ACLU got involved with. Totally different issues despite the attempts of some here to equate them as the same.

    And is it just appropriate because you happen to agree with Obama or would(will) it be alright with you when the next Republican president gets into office, too?

    Assume much? I don't agree with Obama on most things. As a Republican with a brain though, I will not engage in ridiculous partisan attacks when facts speak for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This is a good comparison. There is not a lick of difference between Obama doing it and Warburton

    The constitution says nothing about seperating church and state but rather speaks to the forcing of church by a government entity

    ReplyDelete
  19. Surely,
    No, you made up the part where you asked if I suggested that clergy not be allowed to say what they like at the pulpit. I said nothing to indicate that and your response was a misrepresentation. At no time did I suggest the clergy can not speak what's on their mind. The point I made and the point you have still avoided addressing is the topic of the inital post. You dismiss it as a "nonissue". Should Obama be encouraging clergy to promote his agenda and his agenda's supporters? I say no. You don't seem to want to address that issue.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Fed up,
    I agree that we would have had the same spill if the election had gone the other way. As long as you are just as critical of Obama being in bed with the oil industry, that's fine.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hmmmmmm.........I get back here and see that Zach has disappeared again

    Surely.......I don't think there is any difference between promoting Obama's healthcare plan from the pulpit or Warburton promoting pro-life from the pulpit yet there was a big uproar over that even to the point of Democrat Central Committee man Thackeray trying to get their tax exempt status revoked

    Amazing what a difference it makes to some on here when there is a big D in front of the politicians name

    ReplyDelete
  22. Should Obama be encouraging clergy to promote his agenda and his agenda's supporters? I say no. You don't seem to want to address that issue.

    I have no problem with him, Wendy Warburton, or anyone else encouraging a church to promote an agenda. It is up to the church to decide what they would like to do.

    No, you made up the part where you asked if I suggested that clergy not be allowed to say what they like at the pulpit.

    Oh brother.... I didn't "make up" anything. In fact, here is the exact question: "Are you suggesting that Churches are prevented from preaching whatever they want or should be? That's definitely what it sounds like." It was a very simple question.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Freddy said: Surely.......I don't think there is any difference between promoting Obama's healthcare plan from the pulpit or Warburton promoting pro-life from the pulpit yet there was a big uproar over that even to the point of Democrat Central Committee man Thackeray trying to get their tax exempt status revoked

    I wholeheartedly agree.

    Amazing what a difference it makes to some on here when there is a big D in front of the politicians name

    I've always thought that you can find more hypocrisy in the midst of a political discussion then virtually anywhere else.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Surely,
    The answer to your question is - NO! I don't, and never have even suggested that clergy should be prevented from preaching what they want.
    If you go back and read my response to your inital comments, you can clearly see that I in no way suggested that. I suggested that the "state" shouldn't push an agenda through the church.
    And you never did address my point that since the healthcare has already passed, he is simply promoting candidates that agree with him. Not the health care issue. Care to address that?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Both sides used churches, mostly due to the fact that they are often filled with responsible taxpayers who vote.

    This is quite different than the forced and coerced participation and conversion to religion that is required by different government agencies on a regular basis.

    This really is not about the use of the pulpit, or religous channels to promote the president's health care agenda, rather a chance for the republicans to condemn it, in their "just say NO!" policy towards Obama.

    The republicans want to condemn, and apparently recall the entitr health care policy, due to the fact it costs too much money.

    Society should view the problem not as a money saving matter, but a life saving matter.

    Hopefully society will wise up at some point in time and demand a single payer system, as is used in most of the civilized world.

    ReplyDelete
  26. you guys are a scream...
    pissing and moaning about irrelevant
    twiddly...
    you got 8 years of hosing from the texass monkey boy and his scummies...
    all the finance scummies are still at play...
    have you slept through ALL the prez and con-gressional cycles in your life?
    you've been hosed all along, you are getting hosed right now, and you will be hosed at the next "elections".
    nice and con-sistent, no?

    ReplyDelete