Is Obama on record saying he converted to Christianity or is the dirtbag just throwing red meat to Fox News’s fringe viewers?

This guy is stupid, Robert Stephenson stupid! Right?

Ignore the above statement, it was typed in error.

How bout we just ignore all of your statments? Anyways, the only implications I see being made are by the author of this post.

O’Reilly’s statement is correct. Obama, by his own admission, was never a Christian until he moved to Chicago and met Jeremiah Wright in the 1990s. Rev. Wright baptized him into the Christian faith as an adult. That is a conversion to Christianity:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/145971

And, for the record, (because I know where people will go next with this), it is accurate to use the term “converting” to Christianity eve if the person had no prior religious affiliation. From wikipedia:

“Conversion to Christianity is the religious conversion of a previusly non-Christian person to some form of Christianity.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_conversion

So, Drew, to sum up, you ran a snarky story imputing either (a) an improper motive, or (b) a “blunder” to O’Reilly when, in fact, what O’Reilly said was 100% correct.

I await the correction that I’m sure you’ll post forthwith.

Drew, I also note that I knew O’Reilly was right before I ever read the story based on my own background knowledge. Nonetheless, it took me less than 90 seconds of googling to confirm those facts. Maybe it would have been nice if you had done same thing before you cast aspersions on O’Reilly??

You are never converted to any religion. Just brainwashed into it…

Burnnotice:

Go read the Confessions of St. Augustine and tell me whether you stand by that statement.

anonFinch…Superb! I guess the research dept at mediate doesn’t have a link to Newsweek…..

Good job!

I could care less about the converted part. If the word that defines when someone switches from confusion of religion to the belief in Christianity is converted then so be it.

I am more dumbfounded that this is a story. Safety of the President should be key, and disrupting Easter service because of the President would be silly. Mediaite: could you please start focusing on the context of the stories you critique instead of the words used to describe it? This is a non-story.

Marcus, it’s a story to try to bash fox news, that’s the gig here, where have you been?

Since Rev. Wright’s best friend is Louis Farrakhan, Obama could’ve picked either one to follow with little difference.

Content notwithstanding, it’s perception that matters in honest news reporting. Now, no one knows whether Bill had insidious motives or not when he said that ( I don’t think he did,) but, a majority of his viewers (largely conservative) believe Obama is a Muslim and therefore, his nonchalant statement did not bolster this perception nor did it refute it. However, he was correct to say Obama ‘converted’ to Christianity 2 decades ago. That is factually correct. He however should have also mentioned what the “conversion” was from.

Perhaps Drew might have gleaned a tiny hint that she was way off base when that “right wing nut” Sally Quinn didn’t bat at an eye at BOR’s statement!

So, what are the odds that Drew ignores us all and just lets her totally screwed up analysis stand?

Okay, O’Reilly was just repeating what Obama has already said. But it’s on Fox News, so it must be a lie. I have that on the authority of Media Matters, which has pretty much shown that everything on Fox News, including weather reports, closing credits and theme songs, are all lies.

If Drew wants to do a story about people claiming that Obama is a muslim, maybe she should start with this email:

“Obama’s parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia. When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta . . . Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background.”

The problem for Drew is that this email was sent by Hillary Clinton’s campaign:

http://politicalnighttrain.wordpress.com/2007/12/05/hillary-clintons-obama-muslim-smear-email-full-text/

Birtherism also began with Hillary Clinton supporters.

>You are never converted to any religion. Just brainwashed into it…

I don’t think Obama is Christian at all…he’s probably still atheist. Unfortunately in today’s political climate, it’s impossible to run for President as an atheist. In 30 years though it’ll be easier.

That’s interesting!But i can’t understand that what’s the need to know this ?
We gave him this place and he deserves that.He is trying to convince us with his promises then why is this issue ?I think there is no point of this discussion.
how to get him back

In terms of President Obama’s obvious commitment to Christ’s Great Commission in the world, it might be argued that he walks much closer to Christ than many of his predecessors. Certainly, in my adult life, the occupants of the White House who seemed to be most ignorant of the Great Commission or less likely to adhere to it were Raygun and W. So, what I am saying, is if we are to judge by actions, Obama seems to be far more Christian.

Now, a very good argument can be made that the principles of the Great Commission ought not be governing principles in a secular, separated government. There, too, it seems President Obama may have a leg up. While being most true to the Great Commission, he seems most tolerant of the religious beliefs and practices of others. I recall, with shivers, W speaking of the Invasion of Iraq as a crusade.

Whatever silliness O’Reilly and some of my fellow posters may want to get into, I think it can be said, with the greatest of certainty, that we, as a nation, and in our secular activities, seem to be more Christ-like than at any time since Roosevelt.

Of course, the preceding post assumes that as a culture, we share the vision of the Great Commission, that the hungry be fed and the naked be clothed. I think that is true for the vast majority of Americans who still see America as the Shining City on the Hill. I realize that there are some who see America as a mere theatre for avarice, greed and treachery. They are not Americans, they are Amerikans, and I am concerned not for them nor I am interested in their views.

@The Real Royal King: “I recall, with shivers, W speaking of the Invasion of Iraq as a crusade.”

Well actually you don’t, since he said that on 09/16/2001 about fighting al Qaeda.

RRK:

Not surprisingly coming from you, that is quite a distortion of Christ’s mission. And, in fact, it’s particularly ironic that it would come on Good Friday of all days. The lesson of the events starting with Gethsemane and ending with the Passion and Crucifixion is that Christ had no interest in reforming or working through governmental institutions. Time and again that day, he could have led a revolt against both the Romans and the Jewish hierarchy. When he told Peter, “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword,” the sword he was talking about was, literally, the sword of the coercive force of government, a government that was trying to arrest him. “Ecce homo” is a similar moment where Christ submitted himself to the coercive force of government rather than using his power to change it for his purposes.

But aside from the biblical implications of the events of this day, there is a more important theological point (as well as a political one). In the Christian tradition, God is omnipotent and omniscient. If he wanted to, he could create a world without hungry to be fed and naked to be clothed. Or, he could use his power to compel men to solve those problems. Instead, he chose to give us a world with men of free will, even though such a world necessarily allows for natural evil (hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.) as well as moral evil (murder, rape, etc.). The very point of Christ’s incarnation is that a “perfect” world without free will is inferior to an imperfect world with free will.

Using the coercive force of government to, in your words, effect Christ’s Great Commission robs men of free will. If a majority of 51% of the people use the force of government (the same sword that Christ was confronted with at Gethsemane) to force the other 49% to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, you haven’t changed any hearts. All you’ve done is rob that 49% of their free will. You’ve tried to perfect the world in a way that only God could do, but has chosen to do because free will is more important. That is hubris, the first sin.

There is also a political point here. The statement you made about Christianity and government is very much in vogue nowadays in some progressive quarters, and it reveals the primary problem with progressivism. The assumption with all progressives is that if something is good, you maximize it by federalizing it. That’s simply not true. There are plenty of examples of good activities that should never be touched by the federal government because the federal government doesn’t have the competence to do them well, corrupts them, or “occupies the field” and doesn’t allow other agents to improve or innovate.

Sorry, important typo in the last paragraph. The penultimate sentence should read “but has chosen NOT to do because free will is more important/”

@M .”I don’t think Obama is Christian at all…he’s probably still atheist”.

I would say you are quite right. This does not mean that he is not religious though. Fact being Environmentalism “is” the religion of the Atheist…

@AnonymousFinch “Read the Confessions of St. Augustine”

Thank you for making my point! Another Fairy tale to brain wash the illiterate…

Looks like we’re not going to get a retraction from Drew. Instead she’s working on her exclusive scoop that O’Reilly also called Obama “biracial” last night. Was that just a slip of the tongue, or was O’Reilly trying to stoke up racial hysteria?

Of course, AF, I was talking about the charge to Christians, not to Christ, and your view of the Great Commission and its unfolding is certainly an easy burden to discharge in the world. Indeed, it requires virtually nothing of the Christian, does it? I’m content with my more aggressive interpretation.

By the way, I have read Confessions, in the original text and the Pusey and Outler translations into English, as well as Luther’s commentary in German, so let’s don’t get too pretentious nor be too liberal in interpreting Augustine into some feel good form of do nothing Christianity.

RRK

No, quite the contrary. The exact opposite in fact. You don’t feed the hungry and clothe the poor by letting the government do it for you via payroll deduction. You go out and do it yourself through direct charity work. You’re way of doing it much easier then mine.

Again, Christians believe that Christ was fully God and therefore omnipotent. He could have walked into Pontius Pilate’s office one day and said, “Pontius, I really think we need a single payer health care system in Samaria. Let’s raises taxes do it” Pilate would have had no choice but to comply. He didn’t. He had a ministry. He went from town to town healing people himself and preaching for others to do the same.

You’re the one who thinks all human moral requirements can be satisfied by writing a check to the government. That’s the easy way out.

Again, RKK, you are falling into the fallacy that the federal government is the best and, as you’ve articulated it here, agent for moral action. In your view, it doesn’t count as doing something unless the federal government does it: not state government, not non-profits, not Churches, and certainly, God forbid!, individuals.

We can debate whether or not that is wise as a matter of political policy. In fact, we do every day and we obviously disagree on that point. But you can’t seriously argue that that is what Christ had in mind a theological matter.

Render onto Caesar what is due Caesar, and render unto God what is due God. In other words, pay your taxes but don’t think that satisfies your moral obligation to the Almighty.

Sorry, another important typo (I think faster than I type). The first sentence should read “first, and as you’re articulated it here, ONLY agent for moral action.”

Atticus, no response please but you are the most thoughtful, reasoned, articulate and free of personal animus to the cretins who mistake vile personal insults for debate I have ever encountered on the net.

Thank you!

Really nice job, Finch! Keep up the good work!

Drew gets caught making stuff up again. How… well, pretty predictable, really.

Yeah, Kudos, Finch. How you can stay so patient with the King, who is absolutely locked into his far left philosophy, is amazing.

BHO WAS a Muslim. You have to be a dullard not to have known that.

When enrolling in a Catholic school in 1967 in Indonesia, Obama’s mother and step father (a Muslim) listed Obama’s religion as Muslim, but Obama later said that even though he’d been enrolled as a Muslim, it was a Catholic and not an Islamist school. This was the Associated Press’ explanation during the campaign when Obama was facing questions about ever having been a Muslim.

Wow. This Drew guy sure has some issues he needs to work through. If he’s not trying to blame a probable murder/suicide pact of a former congresswoman and her husband on the right, he’s attempting to smear OReilly by implying he’s trying to accuse Obama of being a muslim.

And, don’t hide behind, “well, I was merely asking for the reader’s opinion.” The answer is so completely obvious that one need not even ask, unless they’re trying to attack someone by doing so. Of course Wright lead Obama to a conversion, as Obama said that Wright lead him to Jesus. A non-christian coming to Christ is clearly a conversion.

At least you didn’t try to sneak in an unrelated attack on “death panels” or anything. Not in this article at least.

His religion is democracy. Yes, it is religion.