I think Obama did a fine job of simply saying that Jesus is the embodiment of a principle of brotherhood.

I thought Jesus was all about brotherhood. Obama said that the church represented a principle of brotherhood, and represented the ideals that Jesus evokes, The church did this following Hurricane Katrina by helping the victims. The government failed in this by failing to respond compentently to the disaster.

He did not say the government should be the rock, the government should simply be competent.

I don't think Obama was trying to be a theologian, or to push any religious viewpoint at all. He was simply using the principles of Christianity as a medium of common understanding with the people of N.O. who have had to rely on faith (and not so much government) during the past two years. IF it is true that much has been spent and little has been accomplished is not the people of N.O. who should be blamed, it is the incompetence of the government.

This speech had very little to do with religion, and everything to do with caring about human beings. This appears to be a concern that most of the people complaining about this or that in their posts seem to ignore.

The other titling comes afterward, but first and foremost, as per their very minister (who has said as much on various televised interviews), he is minister of "A BLACK CHURCH" of which Obama (and family) are members. When questioned about why they use that definition of their church, the minister grew immediately rude, impatient, angry and was obviously condescending to and about the very question, suggesting that the "White" man who asked that question was just "too dumb" to understand.

How would any of you Liberals here respond if a Republican, Christian male (or female, for that matter) went before the world and proclaimed that they were members of "A WHITE CHURCH."

I can barely stand to consider just to what extent the outcry would ensue, if ever so...

About the "Separation of Church and State," another thing about Liberals that can always be relied upon to happen without balance, is, that WHEN you hear A LIBERAL who you "like" mention Christ and/or refer to the Bible (New Testament or Old), you support the statement/s. WHEN, however, you hear a Conservative refer to Christ, Christianity, the Bible (Old and/or New), you revile them.

It comes down to the fact that you dismiss and denigrate Conservatives when and if there is mention of Christ and Christianity, while you promote those Liberals who do even when they obfuscate their references (and in this case, I refer to Obama, his "black church" and the use of this Biblical context to politicize his intents).

I never grow weary of hearing or reading anyone quoting Christ, or for that matter, any part of the New Testament (while the Old Testament is sometimes used to dismiss the New Testament and to denigrate Christ, and that's a problem for those locked into the Old Testament only - the two Old and New are to be taken and regarded together).

But I am weary of hearing mostly Liberals refer to the Bible without context, often, of Christ, for political reasons, while doing their utmost to stamp out mention of Christ nationwide along with harassing anyone who believes in the morality proclaimed by Christ (and in the New Testament).

Obama is a politician. I like his wife. I'd never vote for either of them, however, but that does not mean I don't find them both charming (I do). I think they are confused and misled as to Christianity and especially as to what democracy means and is, and how it is to be maintained. Obama is essentially a Marxist, as is Hillary Clinton, as are most Democrats and Liberals today. They are also essentially intolerant of Christ, the New Testament and Christianity except when they assume the use of any/all will gain them footholds as to sympathy and support. Christ warns us about people like that, especially their actions.

PHONEY!!!!!!!!!!!

We should not however "prohibit the free exercise thereof".

I guess he will use that one in his next speech reaffirming his pro-life stance

oooopssss

Obama is lame. He does not have a clue about this man Jesus.

Essentially Obama says that we need to put our trust in the arm of flesh. Hmmm, Jesus said to do just the opposite.

To all republicans just remember its your fault.. The dollar fell

Its your fault the world hates us.

Its your fault we are so divided in this country.

You must ATONE!!!

Come on, this isn't hard. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Not to mention the fact that Jefferson cited the establishment clause and the free exercise clause as supporting the separation of church and state. And there's the small matter of it being accepted in theory by the U.S. Supreme Court.

When are these idiots (Obama) going to stop exploiting the poor, uneducated and ignorant for their own political gain?

***************************

The wise man may build his house on a rock, but the foolish man builds his house 16′ below sea level in an area surrounded by lakes and rivers, and is then greatly astonished when a hurricane floods the city.

There's not enough government in the world to fix dumb.

Posted By Rick Moore, Mission Viejo, CA : August 26, 2007 11:27 am

I'd love to see Obama as President.

“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”

In letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802 Thomas Jefferson called the first amendment a “wall of separation” between church and state. The Supreme Court of the United States used the phrase first in 1878, and later in a series of cases starting in 1947.

Liberals not only read the constitution... they wrote it.

...[There is a] difference between the goals of the modern Republican Party and the strategy it uses to win elections. The people who run the G.O.P. are concerned, above all, with making America safe for the rich. Their ultimate goal, as Grover Norquist once put it, is to get America back to the way it was “up until Teddy Roosevelt, when the socialists took over,” getting rid of “the income tax, the death tax, regulation, all that.” But right-wing economic ideology has never been a vote-winner. Instead, the party’s electoral strategy has depended largely on exploiting racial fear and animosity.

Ronald Reagan didn’t become governor of California by preaching the wonders of free enterprise; he did it by attacking the state’s fair housing law, denouncing welfare cheats and associating liberals with urban riots. Reagan didn’t begin his 1980 campaign with a speech on supply-side economics, he began it — at the urging of a young Trent Lott — with a speech supporting states’ rights delivered just outside Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964. And if you look at the political successes of the G.O.P. since it was taken over by movement conservatives, they had very little to do with public opposition to taxes, moral values, perceived strength on national security, or any of the other explanations usually offered. To an almost embarrassing extent, they all come down to just five words: southern whites starting voting Republican.

In fact, I suspect that the underlying importance of race to the Republican base is the reason Rudy Giuliani remains the front-runner for the G.O.P. nomination, despite his serial adultery and his past record as a social liberal. Never mind moral values: what really matters to the base is that Mr. Giuliani comes across as an authoritarian, willing in particular to crack down on you-know-who. But Republicans have a problem: demographic changes are making their race-based electoral strategy decreasingly effective. Quite simply, America is becoming less white, mainly because of immigration. Hispanic and Asian voters were only 4 percent of the electorate in 1980, but they were 11 percent of voters in 2004 — and that number will keep rising for the foreseeable future.

Those numbers are the reason Karl Rove was so eager to reach out to Hispanic voters. But the whites the G.O.P. has counted on to vote their color, not their economic interests, are having none of it. From their point of view, it’s us versus them — and everyone who looks different is one of them. So now we have the spectacle of Republicans competing over who can be most convincingly anti-Hispanic. I know, officially they’re not hostile to Hispanics in general, only to illegal immigrants, but that’s a distinction neither the G.O.P. base nor Hispanic voters takes seriously.

Today’s G.O.P., in short, is trapped by its history of cynicism. For decades it has exploited racial animosity to win over white voters — and now, when Republican politicians need to reach out to an increasingly diverse country, the base won’t let them.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ."

The Supreme Court of the United States used the phrase “separation of church and state” first in 1878, and later in a series of cases starting in 1947.

Liberals not only read the constitution... they wrote it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ."

The Supreme Court of the United States used the phrase “separation of church and state” first in 1878, and later in a series of cases starting in 1947.

Liberals not only read the constitution... they wrote it.

Well, not at all, actually. There are some points of contact, but it is not simply an Essene prayer:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qdssmnt.html

This was a valid opinion of Jefferson's, but a questionable one – he was in France at the time of the writing of the constitution.

It is unlikely that the actual authors of the constitution intended this "wall of separation". During the convention, they temporarily halted work on the Constitution to write the "Northwest Ordinance" regarding the entry of new states into the union. In the Northwest Ordinance, they wrote that religion was essential for public education and good government.

Name one thing Obama has done legislative-wise or business related.

As for Edwards, can you seriously spout praise of him as a candidate? Here is a multi-millionaire who HEAVILY invested in hedge funds (post Katrina mind you)- thereby posting significant personal financial gains from the vast numbers of foreclosures – guess where? – that's right, New Orleans. THEN, he posses with Katrina victims on a political platform.

Please wake up and become educated. This Democratic party is NO LONGER the party of JFK and McGovern. It has become a socialist platform steering more towards Marxism than anytime in history.

Local government and the people who moved into a city well below sea-level in hurricane central are to blame – not the White House. Compare what the Mayor of Houston did when they had a cat 4 inbound – without Fed help BTW and see if you can draw a comparison.

Your Obama/Edwards ticket will send us all into a socialist nightmare. If you want to focus on the average American you might want to look at Romney. But whatever you do, please become educationally rounded.

Sure, New Orleans was, and may still be a disaster waiting to happen (again) and yeah, it’s difficult to keep reading every rant about how the government (at all levels) let these poor people down. And, sure, a strong case in that direction, can and has been made.

But the victims of this incredibly predictable natural catastrophe do and must have some self responsibility in all of this too, beyond the manic finger pointing that stared, seemingly, only hours after the storm was over.

What's more worrisome about the Obama's, the Clintons, the Edwards and all the rest is the persistent message about victim hood, and how "we" (the Democrats) will help "you" (the underclass), in this case the victims of a terrible natural disaster. It’s such an old ploy. We’ll help you, we care, we want to make your lives better. Let government take care of you.

Common folks! From the so-called War on Poverty under the Johnson administration to the present day, has it ever worked, or better, worked as promised? But there’s Obama in a New Orleans church making the same tired pitch, sadly to some very weary, and likely still very desperate people. Still, it’s sad.

I've never been to a church where somebody got up and "preached" about how the government has let us down. My churches always talked to us about loving our fellow man and helping them ourselves...not relying on Big Brother to do it.

Get up off your lazy butts, New Orleans!

Hussein Osama BananaRama is a fraud and a true amateur and anyone who can't see this is a) a fool b) gullible c) a scuker d) on drugs e) an ignoramous=A LIBERAL!!!

Posted By C, Middletown, CT : August 27, 2007 3:02 pm

Liberals don't read...don't you know that? Someone fabricated the church/state myth and the libs hopped aboard...

Again I say.......... C'mon folks?!?

Jesus was not referring to himself in this verse. To hear the words of Jesus AND TO DO THEM will help people withstand the storms of life, and death. So lets look at modern-day America in this light. Taking the lives of innocent babies is not following Jesus' sayings. Neither is focusing on riches and ignoring the poor among us.

This country is divided and will fall because neither political party will follow the words of Jesus as found in the Bible. Instead, the liberals have banned it from the walls of our schools, the conservatives hypocritically follow it in word only, but not in deed, and the rest could care less.