Conquer Club

ViperOverLord wrote:Also, people should feel free to claim that this is not a high priority matter if that's their take. So be it if that's what one thinks. But I am going to have to take slight umbrage to the idea that people that consider this a worthy and valid topic are merely engaging in 'pet conspiracy theories.' Secularism vs. Traditionalism/Spirituality is a realistic battle in America. If it wasn't something of a big deal then what is the f'ing big deal of Obama just using the word 'Creator'? See you can't consider it small for one faction and not for the other. That is hardly fair and those that have their valid opinions should not be so easily dismissed or relegated to 'conspiracy theorist' status.

Too late. This has already been dismissed to conspiracy theorist status.

I believe that he took out the word "Creator" and hid it inside his College Records which were then placed with his Birth Certificate and buried in the tomb of the unknown soldier. Then pissed on.

Metsfanmax wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:You think the assertion that he 'misquoted' the DOI isn't 'pertinent?' First off it was not a misquote. It was a calculated maneuver. Obama would not happen to leave that one part out. Therefore it is a pertinent omission.

This does not address my point. If he were quoting the Declaration, then he would have said "In the words of the Declaration of Independence..." It is not an omission. It is simply a paraphrasing of the document.

This is absolutely not necessary, especially in a public speech by any elected official. Furthermore, the words of the Declaration should be the values of all public officials, not just of those who wrote it. The Declaration lays down the values that were drawn upon in framing our Constitution, and those who trivialize those values are also the ones who trivialize the Constitution. Failure to properly understand the Declaration makes it impossible to understand the meaning of the Constitution.

Night Strike wrote:... The Declaration lays down the values that were drawn upon in framing our Constitution, and those who trivialize those values are also the ones who trivialize the Constitution. Failure to properly understand the Declaration makes it impossible to understand the meaning of the Constitution.

Certainly one can understand the meaning of the Declaration and use that understanding to comprehend the Constitution---and all the values associated with either---without believing or professing those kind of things?


--Andy

Night Strike wrote:This is absolutely not necessary, especially in a public speech by any elected official. Furthermore, the words of the Declaration should be the values of all public officials, not just of those who wrote it.

False. The Declaration of Independence holds no legal weight and is only useful as a guiding tool. After all, if public officials were obliged to follow every word of the Declaration, then I'd be a lot more afraid of Texas right now:

Declaration of Independence wrote:That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Night Strike wrote:The Declaration lays down the values that were drawn upon in framing our Constitution, and those who trivialize those values are also the ones who trivialize the Constitution. Failure to properly understand the Declaration makes it impossible to understand the meaning of the Constitution.

Religion or the belief in God are not the values that were drawn upon in framing our Constitution. I believe there's an amendment that even says that!

it is rather noticeable that the "Creator" bit was the only significant idea removed from the sentence (other than implying life, liberty and happiness were exclusive to anything else by removing "among", but that's another topic). however, that might just be an attempt to be politically correct and avoid the religion issue altogether, since it probably had little to do with what he was talking about. i'm not the type of person to make excuses for obama, i'm just speculating as to his motivations. this will only worry me if it becomes a trend.

also, nobody addressed this:

Phatscotty wrote:Desperation? how about a context check.



Which is a larger, and more legitimate critique for a mis-quote/mis-speak?

"nuc-u-lar" or "endowned by...(fill in the blank)"

possibly because it exposes the hypocrisy of liberals, and conservatives are so used to this hypocrisy that it simply didn't matter much.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Night Strike wrote:This is absolutely not necessary, especially in a public speech by any elected official. Furthermore, the words of the Declaration should be the values of all public officials, not just of those who wrote it.

False. The Declaration of Independence holds no legal weight and is only useful as a guiding tool. After all, if public officials were obliged to follow every word of the Declaration, then I'd be a lot more afraid of Texas right now:

Which is exactly what I was saying. If you don't have the tools necessary to guide you, how are you going to find your way (in this case, a proper interpretation)?

Metsfanmax wrote:

Night Strike wrote:The Declaration lays down the values that were drawn upon in framing our Constitution, and those who trivialize those values are also the ones who trivialize the Constitution. Failure to properly understand the Declaration makes it impossible to understand the meaning of the Constitution.

Religion or the belief in God are not the values that were drawn upon in framing our Constitution. I believe there's an amendment that even says that!

Actually, the First Amendment said the government can not establish a national religion or keep individuals for following a religion of their choice. It said absolutely nothing about using the values and principles from religion(s) in setting policies. It's activists and the courts that have redefined the First Amendment to say that any mention of God by the government is illegal.

AndyDufresne wrote:

Night Strike wrote:... The Declaration lays down the values that were drawn upon in framing our Constitution, and those who trivialize those values are also the ones who trivialize the Constitution. Failure to properly understand the Declaration makes it impossible to understand the meaning of the Constitution.

Certainly one can understand the meaning of the Declaration and use that understanding to comprehend the Constitution---and all the values associated with either---without believing or professing those kind of things?


--Andy

One can only hope.

I'll ignore Woody's prototypical snipes and Bones prototypical mislabeling of matters and address your points Mets:

- We know that Obama reads speeches from a prompter so your assertion that it was paraphrasing is almost certainly incorrect. If you go back and look at the quote vs. the DOI you'll notice it is pretty much word for word except that he omitted 'The Creator' and qualifiers like 'that among these are' (likely because nobody talks like that anymore so he thought he'd just sound cooler to leave it out). He was referencing and not paraphrasing. Paraphrasing is when you quote off of the top of your head the general nature of something. This was almost certainly a prepared speech as all or most of the President's speeches tend to be prepared calculated speeches. You'll notice a couple weeks back when Obama said the Republicans treat him like a dog or whatever he said, he qualified that he was deviating from his speech (though he may have just planned that too). The default is prepared speeches so please don't tell us that he was paraphrasing, unless you have something that says otherwise.

- Again he was directly referencing to the DOI. Whether or not you want to call it 'quoting' it is just semantics. He consciously left 'the creator' out of it and you can bet that there was discussion behind the scenes as to whether or not that was a good idea. Come on man. PR is important to this guy. Don't pretend that he doesn't consider PR value in everything he does (as all presidents prudently do). And before anyone gets into it, I'm not saying that this was a PR move. I'm merely saying that he would have considered the consequences and so you can know it was almost certainly a conscious omission irregardless of whether he labeled it a good or bad PR maneuver.

- I am not going to say it's specifically a 'problem' that Obama did not use the term 'The Creator' in his speech. That's his prerogative if he doesn't want to use the term. My point is that it points to the larger trend from those in government and society that want to outlaw or discourage references to God or spirituality. As such, anyone bringing up these concerns should not be relegated to 'conspiracy theorist' status when it is a very real and ongoing issue.

It seems pretty obvious that he was quoting the Declaration and I cannot come up with a logical conclusion as to why he would leave it out.

If he was Muslim, he would've said "Allah" and not creator.

If he was Atheist, he would've said "science".

Perhaps he is a scientologist and is trying to take over the World?

Obama leaving out "Creator" fits perfectly into everything I believe about Obama.

btw, you guys saying this wasn't on a teleprompter?

Phatscotty wrote:Obama leaving out "Creator" fits perfectly into everything I believe about Obama.

Which is...?

Army of GOD wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Obama leaving out "Creator" fits perfectly into everything I believe about Obama.

Which is...?

Well, I dont think I can find the single word to describe it. I will rephrase. "Obama leaving out "Creator" pits perfectly into his character

His character according to you?

ViperOverLord wrote:I'll ignore Woody's prototypical snipes

That's a good move when you don't have a response.

ViperOverLord wrote:We know that Obama reads speeches from a prompter so your assertion that it was paraphrasing is almost certainly incorrect.

Paraphrasing cannot be done in written form? For a speech, no less?

ViperOverLord wrote:Paraphrasing is when you quote off of the top of your head the general nature of something.

That's one method of paraphrasing, and probably the most common...but certainly not the only common method of it.

ViperOverLord wrote:This was almost certainly a prepared speech as all or most of the President's speeches tend to be prepared calculated speeches.

Of course it was a prepared speech. That doesn't affect whether it was paraphrased or not.

Army of GOD wrote:His character according to you?

according to his past.

"America is not a Christian nation..."

Phatscotty wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:His character according to you?

according to his past.
"America is not a Christian nation..."

It isn't a Christian nation.

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:His character according to you?

according to his past.
"America is not a Christian nation..."

It isn't a Christian nation.

Then what is it

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:His character according to you?

according to his past.
"America is not a Christian nation..."

It isn't a Christian nation.

Then what is it

Uhmerican!

Well, it is not a Muslim Nation, nor Jewish. Christianity dominates not just America, but the entire Western Hemisphere.

Phatscotty wrote:Well, it is not a Muslim Nation, nor Jewish. Christianity dominates not just America, but the entire Western Hemisphere.

Why does a religion have to be involved at all in the definition of a nation?

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Well, it is not a Muslim Nation, nor Jewish. Christianity dominates not just America, but the entire Western Hemisphere.

Why does a religion have to be involved at all in the definition of a nation?

because of the simple fact that someone might ask why Obama would say something like "America is not a Christian nation."

In other words, because Obama took the initiative to define what religion a nation isnt...

Dont make me bust out the Broom woody

ViperOverLord wrote:I'll ignore Woody's prototypical snipes and Bones prototypical mislabeling of matters and address your points Mets:

- We know that Obama reads speeches from a prompter so your assertion that it was paraphrasing is almost certainly incorrect. If you go back and look at the quote vs. the DOI you'll notice it is pretty much word for word except that he omitted 'The Creator' and qualifiers like 'that among these are' (likely because nobody talks like that anymore so he thought he'd just sound cooler to leave it out). He was referencing and not paraphrasing. Paraphrasing is when you quote off of the top of your head the general nature of something. This was almost certainly a prepared speech as all or most of the President's speeches tend to be prepared calculated speeches. You'll notice a couple weeks back when Obama said the Republicans treat him like a dog or whatever he said, he qualified that he was deviating from his speech (though he may have just planned that too). The default is prepared speeches so please don't tell us that he was paraphrasing, unless you have something that says otherwise.

As a character in one of my favorite movies said, "I do not think that word means what you think it means." Paraphrasing has a specific technical and literary meaning - directly referencing the material of another work, but without directly quoting (usually by rewording it or rearranging it). I did not mean to say that this was an off-the-cuff comment - I'm sure you are correct (as you say below) that whoever wrote this knew that the Declaration includes the word "Creator" and leaves it out. The reason why this is a non-issue is that Obama wasn't quoting the text, he was referring to it.

- Again he was directly referencing to the DOI. Whether or not you want to call it 'quoting' it is just semantics. He consciously left 'the creator' out of it and you can bet that there was discussion behind the scenes as to whether or not that was a good idea. Come on man. PR is important to this guy. Don't pretend that he doesn't consider PR value in everything he does (as all presidents prudently do). And before anyone gets into it, I'm not saying that this was a PR move. I'm merely saying that he would have considered the consequences and so you can know it was almost certainly a conscious omission irregardless of whether he labeled it a good or bad PR maneuver.

I agree that most likely, whoever wrote this made the conscious choice to refer to the phrase as it was. However, I see it as a non-issue because of the context of the situation - Obama was telling us what a core American principle was, not telling us about whether God gave us the rights that we have. If we removed the bit about them being "endowed by our Creator," it would still make sense as a core principle for what America is all about.

- I am not going to say it's specifically a 'problem' that Obama did not use the term 'The Creator' in his speech. That's his prerogative if he doesn't want to use the term. My point is that it points to the larger trend from those in government and society that want to outlaw or discourage references to God or spirituality. As such, anyone bringing up these concerns should not be relegated to 'conspiracy theorist' status when it is a very real and ongoing issue.

I'm not going to defend whoever made the comment about conspiracy theories, but there's some validity to the message: specifically, you'd have to show that there's some intentional trend among politicians and public figures to disavow such references to religion, and that it is being done to achieve some larger goal. If it just so happens that a lot of politicians are choosing not to reference God in their arguments, then all you can show from that is that there are some not-very-religious people in government. But I don't think there's a sweeping trend to secularize government at the moment - most members of Congress consider themselves religious.

The fact is, religion is polarizing in today's society. I don't think you can say that Obama is trying to push religion aside by neglecting to mention that part of the sentence; I think it makes sense as a tool to diffuse controversy that is unrelated to the topic at hand. There's a time and a place to discuss the place of religion in society and government, but the convention he was at certainly wasn't it. Now, I don't mean to say that every reference to a Creator is a way to spark a religious debate, I only mean that to pretend the issue of religion in government isn't important would also be wrong.

"Again he was directly referencing to the DOI. Whether or not you want to call it 'quoting' it is just semantics. He consciously left 'the creator' out of it and you can bet that there was discussion behind the scenes as to whether or not that was a good idea. Come on man. PR is important to this guy. Don't pretend that he doesn't consider PR value in everything he does (as all presidents prudently do). And before anyone gets into it, I'm not saying that this was a PR move. I'm merely saying that he would have considered the consequences and so you can know it was almost certainly a conscious omission irregardless of whether he labeled it a good or bad PR maneuver."

I agree that most likely, whoever wrote this made the conscious choice to refer to the phrase as it was. However, I see it as a non-issue because of the context of the situation - Obama was telling us what a core American principle was, not telling us about whether God gave us the rights that we have. If we removed the bit about them being "endowed by our Creator," it would still make sense as a core principle for what America is all about.

The core American principle is that we are endowed with these rights by our creator. To leave that out and simply state it witout the creator is simply a derivative. It doesn't need to be altered; that is unless he has a secularist agenda that opposes the mention of God in a public forum or unless one does not believe in a higher power (which is not something Obama claims).

ViperOverLord wrote:The core American principle is that we are endowed with these rights by our creator. To leave that out and simply state it witout the creator is simply a derivative. It doesn't need to be altered; that is unless he has a secularist agenda that opposes the mention of God in a public forum or unless one does not believe in a higher power (which is not something Obama claims).

Obama may not say he is an atheist, and he may not be one; but if he believes that God should not affect the government, then it is his right as an individual and an elected official to leave religion out of his arguments. He doesn't have to defend religion simply because Jefferson did.

Woodruff wrote:It isn't a Christian nation.

Whatever. This ignorance about who and what we are as a nation is one of the biggest reasons why we have managed to screw up everyone else in the world because of the false notion that we can divorce our constitutional democratic system from the European / Christian roots that undermine it. It's attitudes like this that continues to f*ck up the Middle East.