Obama Appoints Rev Wright as Faith Based Initiative Chairmen?

Who would you pick as his Faith Based Initiative Chairmen

  • Rev Wright

    Votes: 2 40.0%
  • Dr. Dobson

    Votes: 1 20.0%
  • Hillary

    Votes: 2 40.0%

  • Total voters
    5
You haven't proven jack ish, you simply made the claim and provided no proof. One and two minute soundbites from youtube the Bass assumes, is your proof, right? You have to show that Rev Wright and Trinity United preaches or have ever preached anything remotely like this:




Provide evidence that Wright's church preaches any of the sort against white people, otherwise you're just tapdancing.

Oh? I made no claim, einstein. I responded to your response to someone else who made a claim. I have nothing to prove and if you think I've got either the time or inclination to dig up the same shit that permeates this forum on Obama and repost it yet again so yet another leftwingnut can pretend he can't see it, think again.

If Wright hasn't preached anything divisive then why is Obama saying he has? Even your own boy says you're full of shit.
 
Oh? I made no claim, einstein. I responded to your response to someone else who made a claim. I have nothing to prove and if you think I've got either the time or inclination to dig up the same shit that permeates this forum on Obama and repost it yet again so yet another leftwingnut can pretend he can't see it, think again.

If Wright hasn't preached anything divisive then why is Obama saying he has? Even your own boy says you're full of shit.

Wright hasn't preached anything divisive and the only reason Obama is saying anything like that is because he's a politician, a presidental candidate for two, but if anyone looks at the entire sermon Wright said nothing divisive and the Bass is no leftwinger nor an Obama voter. The burden of proof is on you and Obama is full of it, this is the same pastor he's known for 20 years so how can he say logically this isn't the same man he has known for all those years? Obama is ok, but he can be full of it sometimes too.

Still the original claim is unproven, Wright's church preaches no racism and no hate.
 
Wright hasn't preached anything divisive and the only reason Obama is saying anything like that is because he's a politician, a presidental candidate for two, but if anyone looks at the entire sermon Wright said nothing divisive and the Bass is no leftwinger nor an Obama voter. The burden of proof is on you and Obama is full of it, this is the same pastor he's known for 20 years so how can he say logically this isn't the same man he has known for all those years? Obama is ok, but he can be full of it sometimes too.

Still the original claim is unproven, Wright's church preaches no racism and no hate.

Already posted. The Church doctrine and beliefs are based of a guy Named Cohen. Go read his shit. He states that white people are evil and that any God that thinks they should live is no God at all. But hey you keep those blinders on.
 
Already posted. The Church doctrine and beliefs are based of a guy Named Cohen. Go read his shit. He states that white people are evil and that any God that thinks they should live is no God at all. But hey you keep those blinders on.


Still wrong, nothing in the church doctrine itself is racist, you have basically provided no evidence at all for your claim.
 
Why respond to trolls except with the contemptuous mockery their trollish nonsense deserves?
 
Yup Nothing wrong with claiming the US created AIDS to kill black people, or that the US sells dope to blacks to keep them down.

newsflash, he said the government was capable of doing so, he made no outright claim that anyone did. These same claims have been put forward by white men also, there were those who said crack cocaine pushed into black neighborhhods in order to finance rebels in Nicuragua, but you wouldn't call those white men racist would you?
 
newsflash, he said the government was capable of doing so, he made no outright claim that anyone did. These same claims have been put forward by white men also, there were those who said crack cocaine pushed into black neighborhhods in order to finance rebels in Nicuragua, but you wouldn't call those white men racist would you?

I would call them white apologists that are guilty ridden because of the color of their skin.

ANd hey genius, he said the Government did it, not that they could have done it, Even if he said they could have, it amounts to the same thing.
 
I have no dog in this fight which is why I decided not to bark in. But I must say it has been very entertaining. You know they say there are three type of people:
Those who make things happen, those who watch things happen and those who ask, What happened?
Well I just found a fourth type of person named Bass who says,
"I saw with my own eyes what happened and will continue to deny it."

Base, get some help because you are in serious denial. But what do I know, I'm just a white neocon racist right-wing dog not an Afro American dog.

Can we all just get along?
 
Last edited:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." - Thomas Jefferson

. no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities - James Maddison:eusa_whistle:
 
Other then the opinion of a couple guys, please show us in writing, with in the documents that run and establish our Government, this term " separation of Church and State". Further note that as used by your founder Jefferson, it did not mean that religion could not be IN Government, only that, as stated in the Constitution no established religion could dictate from the Government.

You are of course aware that Jefferson attended church every Sunday while President? ANd that if I recall right, the services were held in the Congress?
 
come on now.. claiming Jefferson is a pretty far stretch.


regardless, it's good to see the dogma monopolized by republicans. And, if I recall, the man is making some rather significant, generous statements lately about religious issues. You know wright doesn't speak for deomocrat faith. And no one is adopting his rhetoric. He believes what he believes just like dobson does and it's no reflection on either candidate.
 
I would call them white apologists that are guilty ridden because of the color of their skin.

ANd hey genius, he said the Government did it, not that they could have done it, Even if he said they could have, it amounts to the same thing.

BS, if I said you were capable of raping a 10 year old girl name Lolita is that really the same as saying you actually did it?

And get informed a little more about the drug trade, neocons are amazingly devoid of the five senses when it comes to the truth

Online NewsHour Forum: Gary Webb - CIA-Contras-Crack Cocaine -- November 5, 1996
 
Separation of Church and State was always intended to mean that the Church would have no power to dictate to government and government would have no power to dictate to any man, woman, or child what he or she must believe in respect to religion and therefore no power to reward or apply consequences to any person based on what he or she believes respective to religion. Having power to reward or apply consequences based on religious beliefs is the literal definition of 'establishment of religion'.

Therefore all the bruhaha over symbols, statues, artwork, or where the Ten Commandments can or cannot be posted, etc. are waaaaaaay outside of the original intent of the Founders when they wrote the First Amendment.

There is no constitutional basis or authority for the government to furnish charity in any form to anybody and it is for that reason that I oppose the faith based initiatives whether administered by the Bush administration or a subsequent administration. However, IF the government is going to furnish charity, I am 100% in favor of those organizations that already have the staff, infrastructure, and expertise in place to provide charitable services rather than start from scratch and swallow up still more tax dollars in expensive and unnecessary bureaucracy.

As for who should direct the effort? Jeremiah Wright would be wholly unacceptable purely based on his racist and anti-American views. James Dobson would be a far better choice practically speaking and would administer programs far more equitably, but even he might be biased when it came to providing certain services to gays etc. so he also should not be appointed by anybody.

I say scrap all government charity and let the people take over that duty again. Government could be a clearing house to channel funds for national or international disaster or relief work. But if government is going to do charity, pick somebody with strong administrative skills who will channel the money where it absolutely will do the most good for the largest number of people.
 
Last edited:
Separation of Church and State was always intended to mean that the Church would have no power to dictate to government and government would have no power to dictate to any man, woman, or child what he or she must believe in respect to religion and therefore no power to reward or apply consequences to any person based on what he or she believes respective to religion. Having power to reward or apply consequences based on religious beliefs is the literal definition of 'establishment of religion'.

Therefore all the bruhaha over symbols, statues, artwork, or where the Ten Commandments can or cannot be posted, etc. are waaaaaaay outside of the original intent of the Founders when they wrote the First Amendment.

There is no constitutional basis or authority for the government to furnish charity in any form to anybody and it is for that reason that I oppose the faith based initiatives whether administered by the Bush administration or a subsequent administration. However, IF the government is going to furnish charity, I am 100% in favor of those organizations that already have the staff, infrastructure, and expertise in place to provide charitable services rather than start from scratch and swallow up still more tax dollars in expensive and unnecessary bureaucracy.

As for who should direct the effort? Jeremiah Wright would be wholly unacceptable purely based on his racist and anti-American views. James Dobson would be a far better choice practically speaking and would administer programs far more equitably, but even he might be biased when it came to providing certain services to gays etc. so he also should not be appointed by anybody.

I say scrap all government charity and let the people take over that duty again. Government could be a clearing house to channel funds for national or international disaster or relief work. But if government is going to do charity, pick somebody with strong administrative skills who will channel the money where it absolutely will do the most good for the largest number of people.

And if government is giving money to churches, surely that shows no favoritism to a particular religion, right? If government gives proportionately to EVERY religion and sect, then I suppose one could argue that there's no favoring a particular religon. However, we know that isn't the case.

Government shouldn't be in the religion business and religion shouldn't be given legislation which codifies its dogma.

Everything else. whether you think it's silly or not, is intended to effectuate that result. And whether you like to believe it or not, with regard to schools, especially, any religion has the tendency to make minorities uncomfortable and discriminated against.
 
And if government is giving money to churches, surely that shows no favoritism to a particular religion, right? If government gives proportionately to EVERY religion and sect, then I suppose one could argue that there's no favoring a particular religon. However, we know that isn't the case.

Government shouldn't be in the religion business and religion shouldn't be given legislation which codifies its dogma.

Everything else. whether you think it's silly or not, is intended to effectuate that result. And whether you like to believe it or not, with regard to schools, especially, any religion has the tendency to make minorities uncomfortable and discriminated against.

Ummm, your remarks relate to what I said in my remarks. . . .how?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top