American Faith: Obama Defends America as Primarily a Christian Nation, and Challenges Primarily Muslim Natins to Show the Same Tolerance to Other Rel

Barack Obama is not a Christian. Bill Maher and I (an athiest and agnostic respectively) agree on that. Howver, today's AP headline featured on aT&T/Yahoo gve me a little pause.


Hacker Biy (Hacking into this disgraceful blog in the name of truth, justice and the american way, despite Skip's continued false smear of me as a Rupert Murdoch hacker): "Hold on here. Skip, you are despicable. This headine, and first paragraph, are the worst yet. You know that Obama said no such thing. As to whether Obama is a Christian, I won't go into thtat. I agree with CNN that it should not be an issue in a political campaign, even if CNN violates its own ssupposed standrds if you happen to be of the GOP, and/or a conservative. But this virtual assertioin on yur part that Obama has declared America to be a "Chirstian nation" is ridiculous."


Skip: Okay, Hacker Boy, what about this hedline this morrning:


"Obama defends American faith amid GOP critique" (AP)


Explain that, if you can, Hacker Boy. Make sure and quote Daffy Duck again. It turns me on. (Having come out of the closet--forced into it byu left wing sexists--as a feminist, who knows what closet I will have to come out of next!!!!)


Hacker Boy: "Skip, yu realy are despicable, and I don't care if I am quoting Dafy Duck talking about Bugs Bunny. I am not going to defend the writers of the AP. While I would call your supposed Sodom and Gomorrah search for an honest, competent AP reporter a disgrraceful stunt, it is ture that AP reporters are not the sharpest knives in the drawer. But youknow that hedline was a backwards way of saying that Mitt Romney, and maybe others in the GOP, are accusing Obama of not having faith in America. It has nothing to do with the Chritian faith. I would agree with your probable response, by the way, that almost all AP wiiters porbly are not Chrisitan in any ral sense, and don't understand "faith". However, that has nothing to do with this headline, or your disgraceful lie."


Skip: I would think better of Brack Obama if he did call America a "Christian nation". Our very foundations go back to the Christian religion, as the mere mention of the pilgrims and Jamestown should indicate. Jamestown, the ver first permanent settlement what would become the United States, was a heavily RELIGOOUS community (despite its hero being the bvery Bill Clinton like, albeit with courage, John Smith. In fact, one of the triumpohs of that early settlement--resulting in her famous, fatal visit to Egnland--was the coversin of Pochahantas to Christianity, as being the result of the mission to spread Christianity to the Native Americans of the New world. I digress. It is ture that the United States of America is not officially a "Christian nation", and is more tolerant of non-majority religions than any Muslim nation on this Earth. But it would be nice if Obama seemed to recognize the Christian traditions of this country on occasion. But what can you expect of a Bill Maher "secular humanist". As to Jamestown, see the biography of "Pochahantas" (title). Yes, it is possible that Pochantas, who did not live to be 25, was more resposible than any other being for making the United States of America possible. The biography pluasibly claims so. And she died a devout Christina.


But Hacker Boy is right, as usual. The AP was being incompetnet again, and I admit I took a lot of license using that incompetence. Here is the correct headline: "GOP criticizes Obama for lack of faith in America.". Taht is, that is what the AP headline meant to say, in a backward way, without endorseing even that hedline as totally correct. Thus, the question is WHY the AP found it necessary to use the ambiguous "passive voice", insted of the direct headline.


The ansewr is actually obvious. The AP, as well sa the entire mainstream media, is about PROPAGANDA. One part of their AGENDA is to supoport Obama. That means that NOTHING is "news" unless Obama chooses to recognize it. If Obama ignores "criticism", then so will the mainstream media (especially the AP). Criticism of Obama is NOT "news", to the propagandists of the AP. What makes it "news" The only thing that made this "news" was the OBAMA "defense". I am probably not technically correct that this is really "passive voice", but it shares the same characteristic of avoiding a diret statemetn. To the despicable AP (quoting Daffy, like Hacker Boy), it is ony OBAMA that matters. That means that it is the REACTION of Obama that matters, and not the original "criticism. Thus, you get a BACkWARD headline, basically contradicted by the "lead" paragraph of the story (whcih starts out: "...Romney criticized Barack Obama...". But, to the AP, "Romney criticized Barak Obama" is NOT news. Like a tree falling in the forest with no one there, it is ony "news" if Barack Obama HEARS it and chooses to imlicitly authorize the AP to talk about it by his own response.


Whenyou understand these people, as I do, the reason for using an ambigous phrase like "American faith" becomes obvious. The whole idea is to make the story be about OBAMA, as that is all that matters to the AP (and the rest of the mainstream media).