Obama's Easter Message

[East of Eden]

"In a few short days, all of us will experience the wonder of Easter morning. And we will know, in the words of the Apostle Paul, “Christ Jesus...and Him crucified.�

It’s an opportunity for us to reflect on the triumph of the resurrection, and to give thanks for the all-important gift of grace. And for me, and I’m sure for some of you, it’s also a chance to remember the tremendous sacrifice that led up to that day, and all that Christ endured – not just as a Son of God, but as a human being.

For like us, Jesus knew doubt. Like us, Jesus knew fear. In the garden of Gethsemane, with attackers closing in around him, Jesus told His disciples, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death.� He fell to his knees, pleading with His Father, saying, “If it is possible, may this cup be taken from me.� And yet, in the end, He confronted His fear with words of humble surrender, saying, “If it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.�

So it is only because Jesus conquered His own anguish, conquered His fear, that we’re able to celebrate the resurrection. It’s only because He endured unimaginable pain that wracked His body and bore the sins of the world that He burdened – that burdened His soul that we are able to proclaim, “He is Risen!�

So the struggle to fathom that unfathomable sacrifice makes Easter all the more meaningful to all of us. It helps us to provide an eternal perspective to whatever temporal challenges we face. It puts in perspective our small problems relative to the big problems He was dealing with. And it gives us courage and it gives us hope.

We all have experiences that shake our faith. There are times where we have questions for God’s plan relative to us, but that’s precisely when we should remember Christ’s own doubts and eventually his own triumph. Jesus told us as much in the book of John, when He said, “In this world you will have trouble.� Let me repeat. “In this world, you will have trouble.�

“But take heart! I have overcome the world.� We are here today to celebrate that glorious overcoming, the sacrifice of a risen savior who died so that we might live. And I hope that our time together this morning will strengthen us individually, as believers, and as a nation."



I thought that was very good, actually. Question for debate: Does anyone think that speech was inappropriate?

[Quath]

I see it as inappropriate if he spoke as President of the United States and appropriate if he spoke as a citizen of the United States. I believe this took place at a prayer breakfast, which is a government event. So I find the breakfast inappropriate and unconstitutional.

[100%atheist]

For the Prayer Breakfast this was an appropriate speech. However, I don't think that it is appropriate for any government official to officially attend the National Prayer Breakfast. I think that Obama, as a good politician, feels that that in November he will be dealing with extreme Bible-loving competitors. So, he prepares for November. He uses religion for his political gains as a lot of other American politicians do.

To me, it looks embarrassing when the educated man, the President, pretends that he believes in zombies. I feel some disconnect between reality and his brains at that time. I also think it is a great embarrassment for the US.

PS: However, one has to admit that this 19-th century stagnation is the nature of modern US politics.

[99percentatheism]

For the Prayer Breakfast this was an appropriate speech. However, I don't think that it is appropriate for any government official to officially attend the National Prayer Breakfast. I think that Obama, as a good politician, feels that that in November he will be dealing with extreme Bible-loving competitors. So, he prepares for November. He uses religion for his political gains as a lot of other American politicians do.

To me, it looks embarrassing when the educated man, the President, pretends that he believes in zombies. I feel some disconnect between reality and his brains at that time. I also think it is a great embarrassment for the US.

What a perfect example of nasty atheism. Intolerance displayed from the so-called enlightened brights.

PS: However, one has to admit that this 19-th century stagnation is the nature of modern US politics.

Obama, as an educated man, rejects the club of nothing creating something. Therefore, he rejects the nonsense of unguided materialism for the desire to embrace the reality of Deity. Like the founders (of The United States) themselves.

From the intelligence that gave us this nation . . . to the intelligence that rejects the silliness of justice from atheistic perspective Obama does well to reject atheism:

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles . . . "

Let is strive to allow the atheist a voice in the public square. Then of course, pat them on the head and walk on by. They are necessary reminders that man is a dangerous machine when given too much power. And if anythijg reminds us of genocidal insanity, it is atheism as a political cause.

Believing in "zombies" rising from the dead?

Still a better thought process than believing all of the universe happened in a lifeless darkness that somehow realized itself and created life. Let us think long or short on that picture of life, drawn from nihilist/materialist processes, is actually insanity redefined by the pushy insane, who managed to get a job with a bit of authority to drive their madness onto mankind as if it were rationality. Ahh, the power of propagandist neologism. Crafty whack-a-doos with a PhD.

We allow free speech because listening to the madness of the activist-materialist in the streets of interaction and our schools of pretend education, is still better than hearing them scream all night long in insane asylums that we have to pay for, staff with good people and keep in healthy conditions.

Why waste time and money on those that spin in circles within their own minds. Because like a disease that can harm most of mankind, atheism must be watched very closely or else we are doomed to have the infectious malady of materialist authoritarianism spread too far. An entire world run by anti-religious totalitarianism? We wouldn't have enough ovens for the dead or ground for the bodies to be buried under.

[99percentatheism]

I see it as inappropriate if he spoke as President of the United States and appropriate if he spoke as a citizen of the United States. I believe this took place at a prayer breakfast, which is a government event. So I find the breakfast inappropriate and unconstitutional.

It's unconstitutional to stop any religious speech anywhere:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

How did the whack-a-doos get the authority to stop religious speech? Our founders supposedly defeated these dangerous authoritarians years ago.

It shows how totalitarianism follows atheism wherever it gains a foothold.

Obama, as much as I don't support his political and social desires, should be allowed the same rights as any other American citizen. UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Unless of course, the so-called freethinkers here don't believe he was actually born in the USA?

[99percentatheism]

OH, and yes, I believe President Obama is pandering to the Evangelicals and commited Catholics in his speech about the Resurrection of Jesus. I don't believe he's a closet atheist, I do have respect for his intellect, but I don't think he has any effective knowledge of the Gospel, other than what fits his socialist political agenda.

By there is hope for Obama in his thinking years that lay ahead of him in a decade or two.

[Quath]

It's unconstitutional to stop any religious speech anywhere:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

How did the whack-a-doos get the authority to stop religious speech? Our founders supposedly defeated these dangerous authoritarians years ago.

It shows how totalitarianism follows atheism wherever it gains a foothold.

Obama, as much as I don't support his political and social desires, should be allowed the same rights as any other American citizen. UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Unless of course, the so-called freethinkers here don't believe he was actually born in the USA?

This has been interpreted that government shall not endorse a particular religion or advance it, but the individuals who make up the government are free to worship however they want.

It would be just as inappropriate for the President to hold an atheist breakfast where religions are mocked in his official capacity. However, he would be free to go to such a breakfast as long as he was doing it as an individual. (No proclamations and no acts of congress.)

[bjs]

The general rule in the USA has been that when a person is elected or appointed to public office s/he does cease to be a human being. Politicians retain their civil rights.

The American Presidents is free to attend, or speak at, a prayer breakfast, church service, or atheist meeting. That is part of his civil rights.

This speech would be inappropriate during the State of the Union address. During a prayer breakfast, it seems fine to me.

If an American citizen doesn’t like that he did this, don’t vote for him. But don’t deny his basic civil liberties.

[Quath]

I don't have a problem if Obama and some of his friends holds a prayer breakfast as part of his personal time. But when it is supported as a government program, Obama is then acting as President and not as a private citizen. The Family that puts on this breakfast is a conservative Christian group that seeks to push Jesus on powerful politicians.

The government is not putting its weight behind one religion to the exclusion of the rest and that is where this fails.

I work for a government lab. As a private citizen, I can say that I find religion to be a bad thing. But I can not speak for my lab like this.

Likewise Obama can say as a private citizen that he follows Jesus, but she should not speak for the country to say that.

[99percentatheism]

I don't have a problem if Obama and some of his friends holds a prayer breakfast as part of his personal time. But when it is supported as a government program, Obama is then acting as President and not as a private citizen. The Family that puts on this breakfast is a conservative Christian group that seeks to push Jesus on powerful politicians.

If this prayer breakfast is put on by a private family, then it is not a goverment endorsement of Christianity. It is Christians doing what Christians should do.

Why can't atheists just leave Christians alone? It's oppressive the obsession that materialists have with Christians.

The government is not putting its weight behind one religion to the exclusion of the rest and that is where this fails.

Obama says he's a Christian. It would be odd to expect him to speak with Muslims about something their religion teaches against. And just as odd to want him to speak with atheists about the risen Christ. Why waste the pearls?

I work for a government lab. As a private citizen, I can say that I find religion to be a bad thing.

But secularism/materialism has wrought horrors upon the world the likes of which haven't been seen since Sodom and Gomorrah. Oops, I mean Soviet Russia. Religion has brought us hundreds of Hospitals and thousands of other social outreach programs benefitting millions and millions of people. Atheism is just a social club of angry people Darwin bent to suppress Christians until they are completely silenced.

But I can not speak for my lab like this.

BHO is not speaking for the USA. He is speaking for BHO.

Likewise Obama can say as a private citizen that he follows Jesus, but she should not speak for the country to say that.

He isn't.

No issue here then.