I thought the real rightwingers were complaining about his christianity and how his former pastor at his christian church was holding views that were too christian.

Read his books - he makes it clear he has an anti-colonial view - so yes - stated. As for "plenty of proof" regarding God and Obama - where do you find that? He showed up to Rev. Wright's church? Sorry - that simply continues to prove his anti-colonial views since the good "rev" doesn't preach about the love of the Almighty, but instead preaches hate for the greatness of America. The only time he says "God" is when its expected protocol.

Judea-Xtianity is the modern form of Protestanism (in its many flavors) that is most prevalent in the US. It is not an extraordinary claim - the outcome of his actions and inactions globally show either a total ineptitude to understand geopolitics in relation to US interests, or they indicate an agenda that is not in keeping with protecting US interests. Given that the majority of the "religious right" is strongly supportive of Israel - his actions allowed him to "tweak" his political "enemies" while weakening the US globally. Proof? Its merely circumstantial evidence - unless you buy that he is totally inept.

Had the US acted - the regime would have been severly threatened at the least. But does an anti-colonial view support a major power supporting regime change to a more pro-western power with the support of others in the region? Of course not.

Remember some of the 2008 hysteria, "Obamas a muslim communist terrorist" etc, all the past 4 years really prove is that hes just abit of a lousy president like Bush was.

A few years back I wrote that the Right, particlarly the Republican Right, attempst to define and redefine language in their political efforts. I was ridiculed by a few members, of which Haplo was not one, for this assertion. I think that we can see the latest in the efforts of wordsmithing by the GOP thinkers here. This is a term that was reintroduced (and redefined) by Dinesh D'Souza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinesh_D'Souza) in an effort to negatively categorize Barack Obama. What is most interesting about this term is the implication that the United States is an imperial power, or neo-imperial to be precise. Prior to this, Republican mantra held that this was never the case. Is this to be the latest philisophical concession?

Errrrr America is anti colonial:doh:

So the church isn't christian and when the preacher says politicians lie he means they tell the truth like good christians, and when he says they discriminate against people for the colour of their skin or their gender he means they treat all people equally as gods children and when he says America has screwed up a hell of a lot he really means god made the US superfantasticly the bestest bestest set of lines ever on a map which never did nothing wrong nosirree.

Sorry you deluded individual but loving some lines on a map and having red white and blue blindness while denying reality doesn't by magic make you a christian, in fact it would make you most certainly un christian and guilty of a cardinal sin young man. What would jesus say of your hubris?
the little son of a carpenter would put you on the naughty step to reflect on your views young man.

:har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
So its actually a nothing, a self contradicting neologism

I am glad I was not one of them - because I agree with you - poltiicians of both sides often redefine words to suite their need.

In this case - I am refering to the "new" meaning of the word - not its classical meaning. The "current" meaning of anti-colonial refers to the prevalent third world view that countries that are successful are so at the expense of the countries that struggle. Obviously - the tie in is that the old "imperial" powers are those that are successful by exploiting others. So the "new" definitiion is simply a step away from the "old" one - it is not a total redefinition.

yet you have a problem with the meaning of the word marriage and only will accept one fairly new meaning, which of course just recently provided a great example of why the "rev" Wright and any proper Christian can stand up and say "God damn America" and have it carry the authenticity which is unquestionable in those circumstances.

That is about the wierdest definition of colonialism I have ever heard. is it a new made up nonsense version?

Islam has zero tolerance to anyone who believes differently then they do.
So where is the difference?
:hmmm:

No, but it is easily fixed. that is the modern version of fundamentalism in Islam which came about in just about the same time as the Christian evangelicals were moving eastward beyond europe.
So fairly recent fundamentalist christians and fairly recent fundamentalist muslims... where is the difference?

The OP asked why does it matter? Hmm perhaps because Islam is in direct contradiction of the US Constitution and our basic cultural beliefs.The global interests of the US are not always(if ever) in line with the interests of the Islamic world, thus the clash of civilizations.Having the most powerful person in the world following a faith that is in direct contradiction of our countries history, law, culture, and interests is a threat to our country.

I do not believe Obama is a muslim(believe he is an atheist myself but uses religion as a tool) but he does have "muslim sympathies" due to his father being a muslim as well as spending some of his formative years in Indonesia, a muslim country.These sympathies apparently come to light in his behavior and attitude towards Israel as well as other remarks he has made, such as apology tour after his inauguration.

So I presume you won't vote for Romney?

No, I will.I believe Romney is more a cultural mormon than anything.I find all religions to be silly but some are certainly more of a threat than others, islam is one of them.I would not vote for Romney if I thought he was a real, hardcore Mormon but his life shows, from what I can tell, he is a reasonable man.I did not support him in the primary but I am okay with him as president, at least he understands basic, real world economics, unlike the current occupant of the white house or his cronies.

Oh, I believe that too! :haha:
However according to the WSJ, one in 4 Americans have concerns regarding a Mormon President. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...022741022.html) - more than would have concerns with a black or a female President.

What's strange is that someone can be a cultural Mormon or Christian, but apparently not a cultural Muslim, as if there are no non-fundamental interpretations. You don't expect most Christians to kill their neighbor who works on the 7th day, but expect any Muslim to take the quran literally?
Even if Obama was a Muslim, as soon as he would put his faith before the Constitution, he would have broken his oath and could be sawed off.

Maybe we could also take a look at the older Bush, who said that atheists can be neither patriots nor citizens... (http://www.robsherman.com/advocacy/060401a.htm) Sounds like he let his faith dictate his judgements and discriminates against the free exercise of no religion.


Regarding real life economics: Well, at least Romney knows real world loopholes that allow him to dodge taxes. How Romney's Millions Went Tax-Free Overseas
I see a conflict of interests here: Closing those loopholes would be in the best interest of Uncle Sam, but not in his personal interest.

Franky, it saddens me that a person can't get elected president in this country without being "religious" to a certain extent. An atheist, for instance, would NEVER be able to be elected in this country. A person's religion shouldn't even be coming into this debate. This country is built on the concept of "freedom of religion". There is also supposed to be a separation of church and state that the Religious Right seem to have forgotten.
I don't understand why it would be such a controversy and so horrible if someone who just happened to be of another religion aside from "Christian" or no religion at all were elected. To a certain HUGE demographic, it would be the end of civilization as we know it.
And what the far Right is doing to the Muslims is just plain wrong. All they're doing is adding to the fire that Joe Redneck who doesn't exist outside his own little protected world is kindling over his fear of anything not completely familiar to him in his closed little world.

When Rep. Keith Ellison from Minnesota was sworn in, instead of having his hand on the Bible, he used a very historic copy of the Koran. You know who it originally belonged to? It was none other then Thomas Jefferson,lol

Ellison's district is mainly made up of Christian"s too!:D That district includes Minneapolis!