Shared publicly  - 
Regardless of your political affiliation or religious beliefs, this is a great quote and I absolutely agree with it.
Arthur Gillard's profile photoLucas Parker's profile photoSamuel Boyd Taylor's profile photoJoshua Herron's profile photo
There's a right way, and a wrong way...just because someone doesn't believe that, doesn't mean they're right in their own way.

Right and wrong needs to be declared.
That is an awesome quote that shows true leadership.

...too bad it's exactly the kind of sentiment that the conservatives use to turn their followers against him.
But gays cant marry and are socially outcast... and now more than ever, despite the founding fathers wishes; religion is in politics more than ever.

Downward spiral America, wake up.
Why your president is even speaking of religion is baffling.
The President, like most reasonable people, "gets it."

I'd also recommend viewing Barack Obama Versus Fundamentalism & Religious Sectarianism on YouTube -
Lorie t
The voice of reason always wins.
Hmm...point to reasons like increased risk for breast cancer, depression, suicide, and a host of other not-so-socially-friendly health concerns...
Depends on with whom you are trying to reason unfortunately.
There is no reasoning with someone religious.

as terrorist is one religious to another.
As a religious person, I'm quite disheartened to see that so many people feel that faith and reason are mutually exclusive. A rational case can be made for the existing of God, just as a reasonable case can be made against it. That is a healthy debate that I think would be very productive. Labeling all people of faith as fanatics doesn't strike me as an especially reasonable point of view. That our own president promotes this stereotype is unfortunate.
rational FOR and reasonable AGAINST?

Healthy debate hmm?

America was BUILT on the seperation of church and state. Or did your education system fail you.
Separation of church and state is a construct that developed much later.
I don't believe he's promoting that stereotype and I don't believe that all religious people are fanatics. Some of my very favorite people in the world are religious in one faith or another. But I do still heavily believe that the separation of religion and government is important, if only to remove the argument of personal bias.
As an australian, your argument based on personal bias is constructed ten-fold. We (apparently) embrace multiculturalism and bend over backwards to be all-accepting and hospitable to all religions.

It however takes an idiot not to see the cultural sects building in our cities, growing prejudices, and basically racial hate because of it.

Back to your original post though, with america being in the downward economic spiral shit-storm it's in; this week I have seen your leader singing with a blues band, his G+ minions posting about how shit the opposition is, and now farting out religious talks - no doubt to drum up public votes-.

Does this trend not scare you?
Interesting +Brad Shorr , because, as a person of faith and reason, I don't see this quote as labeling anyone.
This quote is apparently not recent (according to +Holland Rhodes). But yes, the entire state of our government at the moment is very unnerving. What's even more disturbing is that I don't feel confident about any of the presidential candidates and this is an election year.
+Christy Ramsey - This is the only time I will ever push a candidate on anyone who doesn't share my views...

Have you looked into +Ron Paul? None of them are great but he seems to be the best...
It's the voting of the lesser of the two evils. Not unlike my country.

Politics is fucked.
+Brad Shorr You're missing the point. What is unreasonable is that some "religious people" (trying to be succinct) think that it's okay to legislate in a secular society based on specific religiously held beliefs. You see, you're imposing your religious beliefs on other people and are (likely) violating their civil rights in the process. That's not okay.
I have a lot of friends that are supporters of Ron Paul, but he doesn't seem to have the support that the other candidates do. He seems to be the more level-headed of the group, which (unfortunately) seems to work against him with all the extreme platforms and stances being thrown around.
+Matt Lerner I would say that +Ron Paul holds his principles and act on them unlike most politicians. I don't agree with his take on things but I respect his dedication to his principles.
+Ron Paul has been fighting for america for the last 30 years, and I really feel sorry for the cunt that he hasn't been given the chance he deserves.

I agree with some of those that say some of his ideas are a little rediculous but on the whole, he is BY FAR the best candidate.

Rick perry however provided huge laughs in 2011... not sure he aimed to be hilarious though.
Also, if you're taking part in this discussion you should really watch the 4 minute video I linked to above. Here's the link again:
+Jason Mull I am listening to your link right now, and it is GREAT. but this is 2008. where the fuck is this now? Election propoganda?
+Barack Obama 2008: "No matter how religious they may be, or not be, people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool of attack." (to huge applause)

So what the fuck happened? FOUR YEARS.
+Gordon Murphy I'm not sure that I follow. Yes it's an old upload, but it gives you insight into the President's wisdom on the issue. It's the standard by which all Americans, no matter their religious beliefs (or lack thereof), should hold their elected officials to.
I have witnessed change in perception of the same subject within the same community of a religious belief on several ocasions.
That tells me one thing -
don't go after it at all; just walk along if you can't walk away.
+Gordon Murphy People are still tired of it, but a minority on the right side of the aisle haven't got the memo. Neither have their potential nominees for the Executive Branch.

Mitt Romney - Unfortunately, possibly because of the people the president hangs around with, and their agenda, their secular agenda; they have fought against religion

Rick Santorum - Obama's agenda is based on some phony theology. Not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology.

Total nonsense.
+Jason Mull , I'm sorry mate, you've simply lost me. This whole left, right, republic, democratic bullshit escapes me.

A government is supposed to be out for the people, which basically means the majority of voters rule.

But all i see from the other side of the world is your guys piss-farting around, arguing for and against war, economy, 'defense' (what the fuck), and incredibly, religion.

We have a saying here in australia, called 'a vote of no confidence'.... maybe your guys should try it!?
If it is a political discussion I am better off it. I have no idea about it's front and rear.
4 years old, and wisdom on the 'issue' ?

Whats changed?!
+Gordon Murphy Basically there's an (mostly) old, (mostly) white, (sometimes) affluent group of evangelicals that are considered the "base" (or "al-Qaeda" in Arabic) of the Republican political right in the U.S.

The politicians on the right furiously pander to this group.
they're the cunts that wear the pointy white hats yeah? Well, same misguided beleifs at least.
Obama is sooooooo right. Being a leftist, the Right just can't stand him making such statements. He makes them anyway because he knows the majority of this country trusts him to be "trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent!"
Hey, now, Gordon... a cunt is a perfectly friendly and accommodating organ. I believe what you meant to say was, "People whose beliefs I find vile and repugnant."
Wonder who his script writer is and if he is Union?
+Jennifer Linsky , nope... in australia, 'cunt' just means a person. everyone is a cunt. my mates are cunts, my enemies are fucking cunts =)
"Amenable to reason" is the key phrase. Unfortunately, not much in American politics is amenable to reason these days.
I think most everyone agrees with this, and this is how it currently works (in most cases).

Contrary to what some in the media may have you believe, most in office do not attempt to create legislation based solely on their religious views or any kind of "direct orders" from God. That makes for great headlines and controversy, but it simply isn't reality.
+John Wilkinson there is no "scientific basis" for "defending all human life". The latter being "code" for placing limitations on a woman's right to make her own health care decisions. Does a zygote have assumed civil rights that usurp those of an adult woman? Of course not.
+patrick kitchell There was no debate discussing "if women should have birth control", the debate was over whether the government should provide "free" birth control, or whether the government should mandate that insurance (or companies providing insurance) must provide it for "free". No one is trying to deny women birth control. And the only side which has brought government into this birth control debate is Obama NOT the GOP.
"He who stands for nothing will fall for anything."

Alexander Hamilton.
+patrick kitchell She is free to take whatever BC pills she wants without any gov. intervention.

The issues being discussed were really more of a "who pays for it", not whether or not she should be allowed to take it.
+Landon Zabcik The question is whether or not the Federal Government should mandate that employers' health insurance plans give access to contraceptives. The opponents would effectively block access to birth control for women if they had their way, based on the premise that a religion-associated employer should be exempt of the requirement. Of course, the compromise that the Obama administration put forth would require the insurance company to provide access at their expense while the religious entity basically gets to pretend that it doesn't exist.

In practice, this would have a chilling effect on women under their employ using those important services that they otherwise might choose for themselves. This, or anything less, is giving undo influence to religion in an area (Federal health care regulation) that they have no business. It's as if the church came out and said that seat belts were an affront to God's will and that they, therefore, should be able to provide their employees with seat belt-less cars in contrast to Federal law mandating their installation. An individual employee of the church might have buckled up the next time she took the church van out on the road but found herself going through the windshield instead. And that's religion's effect on driver safety!
on a side note... i really like when he sings :P
Add a comment...