They all lie about everything else. :dubious:
That is how you can tell when they are dead. They lie still.
What people do with their actions and what politicians do with their recorded votes tell about what is in their hearts and who they are.
But the Nazis would have made Nazism the state religion if they thought it would fly with the population, but they knew it never would have. Yes, they exploited those sects & aspects of Christendom which were anti-Semitic (the Klan did and still does the same thing), but they also very clearly said that qualities like Christian mercy and tolerance (and democracy) were to be abandoned. It was exactly what its name implies, National Socialism. Commitment to the state as a whole above all else (including a Christian, or any other, god).
‘Islam’ does not mean ‘peace’, it means ‘submission’. Total submission to their version of god. And total subjugation of those who refuse. This is why there are no, and never will be any, islamic democracies. Democracy (and therefore America) is totally and completely un-islamic. This is why islam has never prospered in the enlightened West. It openly and emphatically denounces any ideas of free speech, free thought, equal rights, the whole thing, life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. Unless it is thru a direct devotion to (their) god. This is also why it has thrived in third world cultures (and later countries) that are authoritarian, brutal, and un-democratic.
So for Obama to refuse to criticize islam at all is like Truman or Eisenhower refusing to criticize Nazism or communism, when it is obvious that they are completely un-American in every way. Sure, we have to give lip service to the arab states we’re friendly with, but just as the Cold War was a war against communism and WWII a war against fascism, this is a war on radical islam. Always has been and always will be.
I was going to ask for cites for your nonsense about Nazism, until I read the above and realized that you live in a fact-free universe. Not only are Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Bangladesh all predominantly Islamic democracies, but they have all had female presidents or prime ministers, something the “enlightened” US has yet to do.
Seriously, read a book.
I thought it meant submission to G-d, not submission to a bunch of punks who happen to be running a government.
Only because we haven’t convinced enough people to stop making it a huge part of politics.
The job starts now.
Hey, if it keeps us from having a Republican president, I’d call it acceptable to say Hitler wasn’t that bad.
I’m hard-pressed to think of a set of circumstances in which such a statement would be necessary to achieve that outcome, though.
Right. Was this before or after they bombed Pearl Harbor?
Just because someone doesn’t go around repeatedly saying Lord Jesus this, Lord Jesus that, etc. even when talking about things that are not related to religion, doesn’t mean he’s not a Christian. And if someone does not spend his days propagandizing America as God’s Own Chosen Light Upon Nations, well, guess what,*** there is absolutely nothing in the New Testament that compels a Christian to do so***.
Now that it was brought up again by adaher…
…that is itself also mere unsupported projection on their part. Like the religious fundamentalists who believe there’s no such thing as real atheists but only people who “hate God”, we have also the people who believe no real intelligent, sensible, sensitive person they admire and identify with can be a Believer.
Not necessarily. If you ask me Obama’s professed religion, I’ll reply “Christian” — that’s a matter of fact. If you ask me what he truly believes deep down, of course that’s something nobody can know, so all I can do is guess. Guessing does not necessarily imply projection — I would like to think that Obama is agnostic, because IMO that’s more rational than being a Christian, and I like Obama. But I also think that a significant percentage of politicians I despise are also faux Christians, and I have no reason to project in their case.
And while it’s unsupported in any specific case, the polls I cited in an earlier post make it very probable that there are indeed faux Christians among prominent politicians.
…and ends with a period.
There have been many wars fought over religion.
I doubt that we can change anything about religious views, however much they differ from our own or lack thereof.
:dubious:
Can anyone explain to me why these conspiracy theorists would even care if Obama was a Muslim?
Like, if Obama were to announce tomorrow that he had converted to Islam, what difference would it make exactly? It’s not like there’s any prohibition against the president being a Muslim.
I’d love it if on his last day in office, Obama revealed that he actually was a Kenyan Communist Muslim homosexual.
A Democrat, an illegal alien, a Muslim and Barack Obama walk into a bar. The bartender says, “We don’t serve your kind in here.”
He said that he was against gay marriage because of his Christian faith. Then when Axelrod revealed that wasn’t entirely honest, Obama said that there was a distinction between his personal belief(pro-gay marriage) and his public position(anti-gay marriage).
Since his public position was, “I oppose gay marriage because of my Christian faith” and his personal position was, “I support gay marriage”, that would strongly imply that his Christian faith is simply part of his public image.
Nope, doesn’t really follow.
Of course there’s no legal ramifications to it, but it would be political suicide. In a democracy you only have power if enough people let you. Not only would there be a public outcry but his entire administration would abandon him. It would be just like Nixon. He’d be ‘strongly advised’ to resign and if he refused the Senate would start impeachment hearings immediately. And, again like Nixon did, if he tried to use his office’s power to save himself his orders would be ignored.
Even Biden would be measuring the drapes in the oval office! 
Nitpick: the House. But I don’t think they’d succeed, not in the time remaining. They’d first have to fish for an ostensible charge to base the impeachment on. Being of the wrong religion isn’t going to fly: the First Amendment (and also the “no religious test” clause) promise that much.
So they’d have to go digging. Benghazi? That cat doesn’t dance. Immigration overreach? About the best they have. The House would likely do the deed, but would 2/3 of the Senate vote to convict? I don’t think so.
It’d be much like the Clinton farrago. Everyone would know that the real reason wasn’t the reason written into the official charges, and the whole circus would only dirty the people closest to it.
He’s on a roll & has a Thorax to grind…