PM sent on the first part- although it was probably inappropriate to say in the first place- my apologies.

 

As for the second part, your original quote was "Our forefathers also said that there should be a clear separation of church and state. If Obama were a minister, priest, preacher, etc, it would be okay to give a speech in front of thousands of cameras with Jesus behind him. However, he is not a minister, priest or a preacher."

 

Unless I have incorrectly understood what you are saying, due to the fact that there should be a clear separation of church and state, it is perfectly reasonable for the White House to request all religious symbols be covered up. Using this logic, since there should be a clear separation of church and state, then having a prayer before the inaugural address is also inappropriate.

 

My question is, if you felt the need to speak up on how what the White House did was right here, why did you not criticize the White House when they allowed a prayer before the Inaugural Address, which blurs the distinction between Church and state?

 

 

I do not have a problem either way. If they chose to leave the religious symbols uncovered, I would not have been offended. Honsetly I think people get offended over way too many things. I can simply understand the reasons for covering up the things they covered.

 

I was not offended by the prayer at the Inaugural address.

I think he mis-typed. The followers of Marx and Lenin do not want the people to believe in God.

 

Thank you for correcting my mistake.

I do not have a problem either way. If they chose to leave the religious symbols uncovered, I would not have been offended. Honsetly I think people get offended over way too many things. I can simply understand the reasons for covering up the things they covered.

 

I was not offended by the prayer at the Inaugural address.

 

I am quite sure you will be upset by what I am going to say. From what I have gathered you are in your early 20's, therefore you do not understand what some of us are upset about, as we have seen such huge changes in America towards Christianity in recent years. Changes that we see that are negative, changes that make us feel that Christianity is being attacked. You are too young to see and feel the same about those changes that we have seen.

 

When a man who professes to be a Christian covers up the face of his own faith, espicially when there were questions about his faith in the election, when so many attack Christianity, we feel we have to fight back. Otherwise the attacks will just continue and we fear the loss of our freedom of religion.

I'm not upset at all by what you said. You are entitled to your opinion.

 

I still think people are too easily offended these days.

TruBlu, I was just thinking that the Pres has all these roadies giving advice, but he does have the final say so. If I was president we all would wear Crimson. :jump:

TruBlu, I was just thinking that the Pres has all these roadies giving advice, but he does have the final say so. If I was president we all would wear Crimson. :jump:

 

And then the state of War Eagle would secede .

21...That would work. :banana: :popcorn:

I agree that many positive changes have been made, but now it is as if the pendelum is swinging from one extreme to another. While we have eliminated many a bias from our society, but not all and unfortunately never will, we do not need to replace those old ones with new ones and I believe that is what is happening.