Trump Fla. Rally
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M353f0yzOf8#t=1h28m00s

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2679618/Hitlers-call-arms-How-Fuhrer-photographer-help-practice-extreme-hand-gestures-body-language.html

On the surface, it seems innocent.

But it isn't.

This is using religion as a weapon to divide and polarise America.

Government and religion should and must be separate.

This isn't right.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2017 07:30PM by anybody.

It's like forcing everybody to indulge in the same hobby.

"Stamp Collectors welcome!"

(Wood carvers will be shown the door.)

(In fairness to Ms. Trump, politicians and their DPs [Designated P----] have allowed themselves to be pimped by the religious establishment since Ooog first crawled from his cave, ran for Chief Mastodon Hunter, and no doubt sucked up to the Sun God crowd.)

Consider the source.I am not surprised. Besides the Constitutional issue, it is hypocritical since neither has shown themselves to be religious before the campaign. Can we say pandering.That said, I believe it is legal. Congress has prayers and many presidents have attended prayer breakfasts or had religious services in the White House



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2017 09:08PM by bona dea.

My guess is that she was told to do it.

It's a shout out to the folks who put The Donald in office. As long as the smoked salmon in the White House kitchen is fresh, I don't care about their personal religion. It's not like God will be directing foreign policy, although it's happened before.

Probably the only religious thing she knows.

While I don't currently attend church, and thus do not recite the Lord's Prayer on a weekly basis, I was brought up as an Episcopalian.

I can recite the Lord's Prayer with my eyes closed.

Given that the USA was founded on the separation of Church and State - I found it (a) inappropriate for the Lord's Prayer to be presented at that venue; (b) was saddened, and actually embarrassed on behalf of the US, that she actually had to read it (c) found her husband's statement disingenuous about not knowing (I've seen politicians do that type of thing in the past).

"Given that the USA was founded on the separation of Church and State - I found it (a) inappropriate for the Lord's Prayer to be presented at that venue;"

You're 100% wrong. There is no problem with offering prayers at government or political functions.

"(b) was saddened, and actually embarrassed on behalf of the US, that she actually had to read it"

Why do you assume she "had" to read it? Has it occurred to you that it might have been *her* idea to read it? Why are you "embarrassed on behalf of the US" for her to read it? Have you been similarly embarrassed every other time that a prayer or other religious ritual has been employed in a government or political setting since the inception of the USA since the 1780s?

You don't get it?

Embarrassed that an advanced, civilized country resorts to some horse-shit nonsense appealing to the superstitious? Come on RandyJ, didn't you escape this silliness? You can let it go and still be a right-winger. You don't need to suck the crusty corporate-republican nozzle. You can just take the parts that make sense. You don't have to defend it all. It's ok, man.

"You don't get it?

"Embarrassed that an advanced, civilized country resorts to some horse-shit nonsense appealing to the superstitious? Come on RandyJ, didn't you escape this silliness?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pbEBxQPWGc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZShtiC6MWSI

"ThingsIthink," are you similarly embarrassed by the "horse-shit nonsense" in this speech?

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=16515

Have you considered choosing a screen name other than "thingsIthink?" 'Cuz I don't detect a lot of thought being put into what you write.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2017 01:17PM by randyj.

Yes, I am. It wasn't any better when Obama catered to nonsense and fake BS. Stop baiting. Ain't gonna work.

"Yes, I am. It wasn't any better when Obama catered to nonsense and fake BS. Stop baiting. Ain't gonna work."

Loyalexmo, your opinion is only your opinion, and nobody else is obligated to agree with it or follow it. American politicians are free to exercise their religious beliefs, exactly as the constitution states. Perhaps your problem is with the constitution.

My problem is with the religious right, who thinks they have the right to push their religion on others. The Founding Fathers weren't Christian, yet they want to act as if this is a Christian theocracy. It's not. Never has been. It's actually in flagrant violation of the constitution.

Also, everyone else is just as free to think myths have no place in politics and to find this foolish and offensive. Your problem with that is not my concern. You seem to be attempting to push an ideology of 'everyone's opinion is valid' but failing to practice it yourself.

Public displays of religion have been legally and morally controversial for a long time, with many Supreme Court decisions coming down on both sides. We're continuing to debate them. If you try to make it a done deal with sweeping claims about exclusive rights to the constitution on your side of the aisle, that's fine, but a quick look at past court cases and legal history will show this issue is very far from it.

You asked if people who found Melania's prayer foolish also found Obama's references to religion foolish, and if we had a problem with it as well. I said, for me, yes, I did. Now you're just making it about something else because you don't like that this is truly an issue of religion and its place in politics instead of some kind of nonexistent hypocrisy you were trying to point out.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2017 02:36PM by Loyalexmo.

"On the surface, it seems innocent.

"But it isn't.

"This is using religion as a weapon to divide and polarise America.

"Government and religion should and must be separate."


"Anybody," I'm giving you the rare combination face palm/eyeroll for your comment.

First off: Trump's appearance today was a private rally paid for by his campaign funds---not a government function. Second, presidents and other federal government officials, can, have, and have the permission and the right to invoke religious beliefs, rituals, and imagery in their public appearances. As examples, in case you weren't aware, the US congress employs chaplains, and they start each day of work with prayer. The US military employs thousands of chaplains who minister to military personnel all over the world. The US congress sponsors a national prayer breakfast, at which every president since Eisenhower, including Obama, has attended.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Prayer_Breakfast

Funny, I've never heard of a single congressman complain that that activity violates the constitution. Obviously, in light of that, it's not true that "Government and religion should and must be separate." The 1st amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF..."

Melania Trump, and every other government official who has very participated in any religious ceremony, ritual, or prayer, whether in a government-or-private-sponsored setting, has done so under the auspices of the free exercise of religion as detailed in the 1st amendment.

https://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/26489-ffrf-sues-congress-for-banning-atheist-from-delivering-house-invocation

They might be able to legally but it's still exclusionary.

It's a clear signal to Trump's far-right evangelical and white nationalist supporters that's he's in their camp. See the Trump "Merry Christmas" debate.

And it tells me that non-religious, non-believers like me who believe in freedom and justice for all have no place in the Trumpist vision of America.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2017 09:12PM by anybody.

"https://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/26489-ffrf-sues-congress-for-banning-atheist-from-delivering-house-invocation

"They might be able to legally but it's still exclusionary."

So, you first assert that the Lord's prayer shouldn't be recited at a political rally (which you are completely wrong about), and then you follow that up with an article which asserts that an atheist should be able to deliver a prayer in the congress?

Have you ever been diagnosed with, or treated for, any type of mentall illness?

"It's a clear signal to Trump's far-right evangelical and white nationalist supporters that's he's in their camp. See the Trump "Merry Christmas" debate."

So, according to your logic, is the fact that every other previous POTUS, including Obama, was a Christian who engaged in Christian rituals and worship during their administrations, indicates that every previous POTUS was "in their camp" too?

"And it tells me that non-religious, non-believers like me who believe in freedom and justice for all have no place in the Trumpist vision of America."

Sweetheart, I'm an atheist too, but I also recognize the section of the 1st amendment which dictates that congress shall make no law which prevents the free exercise of religion. If you're upset that some American politicians or their wives exercise their constitutional right to practice religion, then perhaps you'd be more comfortable living in some nation which prohibits the exercise of religion, such as North Korea.

Trump isn't neutral.

Think of the context.

And North Korea has a state religion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2017 04:15PM by anybody.

Just a question, because I don't know. If it is a private rally, therefore partisan, why did DJT use the govt plane, Air Force One, to travel there? I assume it's allowed as he needs the security. But it seems like mixing partisan politics with a big perq. So, is it required for him to travel on the govt plane?

Re the prayer: I try not to determine someone else's private beliefs. Mostly because it's easy to get it wrong and to become judgemental about it. Although I must say it did take me by surprise to start the rally that way. I didn't see anyone do that during the campaign. But maybe I missed it. Despite wall to wall coverage I didn't see every event.

I do make conclusions about someone's words and actions, though, which are concrete and hence more out there for evaluation than a private belief (unless said belief is also stated).

I'm not bustling to the nearest rally to cheer for DJT (sorry to sound partisan) and I'm not yearning for an opportunity to defend him but I don't hold it against anyone for not attending church and don't draw conclusions merely from that. I myself don't attend regularly any more but still consider myself Christian. To me, being Christian is not about what you do on Sunday (although the more fundamentalist groups do preach that as a requirement, in my experience). It's all about how you live your life, in my view. And if someone says they are Christian, so be it. I'm not going to argue that with them or criticize or judge their devotion. (I think/hope I maintain that approach all or most of the time). I do dislike hypocrisy though, wherever it may be found, so I fall down on the no judging thing now and again.

I'm also, hopefully, not going to criticize somebody who finds themself in a position/role they didn't seek.

Not that I don't have a lot of opinions in this area but as a Canadian, and on this forum, who wants to hear them? Plus. It would be delving deep into the morass of politics, not really where we're supposed to go, despite the recent loosening of that board guideline.

But I am interested in knowing the rules, if any, around use of that plane.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2017 09:11PM by Nightingale.

Just to make sure you know, "anybody" - my comments weren't directed at you. I was just speaking in general about how I feel.

I have a lot of opinions about how things have gone and are headed but don't feel comfortable criticizing Mrs. DJT. It's obvious she didn't have ambitions to be in this position and so she had/has little choice.

I'm not good at discerning someone's inner motivations so I have to stay away from that too.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2017 09:58PM by Nightingale.

"Just a question, because I don't know. If it is a private rally, therefore partisan, why did DJT use the govt plane, Air Force One, to travel there?"

The POTUS has to travel everywhere by Air Force One because of security reasons. The plane contains everything needed to run the country in case of attack or sabotage etc., such as occurred on 9/11/2001.

I thought that might be the case, but was wondering.

Thanks, randyj.

I think the president uses Air Force One whenever he travels for security reasons. There may be exceptions, but that is generally the way it works. Presidential children fly commercial at least some of the time.

It was a campaign rally paid for by his 2020 campaign, which is already registered and collecting money. So they could pray away.

I'm never hostile to Melania. She didn't ask for any of this, and is non-political. She stands up and says what she's told to say, then sits down. She's loyal to her husband.

As far as Air Force One, yes, the president always has to travel on Air Force One.

Politics/religion have mingled together for many decades now making it quite difficult for many to ascertain where one begins/ the other ends! I guess we can assume from this latest, trump insensitivity that Christianity is indeed our State Religion! This senseless act serves no honorable purpose but does in a very obvious, public way minimize other religions! No class! As Always, tnurg (GRUNT)

"I guess we can assume from this latest, trump insensitivity that Christianity is indeed our State Religion!"

Yes, you're 100% correct! Every previous POTUS who ever attended a Christian church, said a Christian prayer, attended a Christian funeral, or participated in a Christian religious ritual in any way, magically made Christianity the US state religion!

Thank you for bringing this important issue to our attention!

We'll see if you are right when he has his next rally and invites a Muslim to face Mecca and pray at the appointed time.

Politicians HAVE to play interested in religion or they won't get votes. They MUST cater to the religious leaders of the majority religions of their base so they can get support.

It's that simple.

If anyone honestly believes the Trumps give a sh!t about following the Bible, they must be in a coma.

This is all about solidifying the allegiance of the religious right.

Indeed!

Keep the knuckle draggers happy.

Do you think the wall-street guys rubbing their hands together over the coming tax cuts had their heads bowed?

I'd call it pulling the wool over the religious right - and they eat it up. He's truly grabbed the religious right by the . . . something.

"This is all about solidifying the allegiance of the religious right."

Yes, of course you're right! Every previous POTUS or their wife who has ever participated in a religious prayer, ritual, or ceremony, has done so to in order to solidify the allegiance of their ideological base! That's why Obama was a member of a black separationist liberation theology church for two decades!

Thank you for pointing that out to us!

I think you mean black separatist, which it was not, though it was based on African-centered theology. And yes, black liberation theology was absolutely a tenet of the church. It's a response to the form of Christianity that was thrust upon slaves.

Do I think it was 'racist?' No. Do I think it was stupid for him to be Christian? Yes, and though it's someone's personal business I don't believe that crap has any place in actual things like politics.

In Mississippi and in other parts of the deep south all sorts of events open with prayer and most people are sincere. But The Lord's Prayer? Not really. It is usually recited at some point during sunday services but it wouldn't be trotted out as some generic all purpose prayer in an attempt to seem Christian.

"In Mississippi and in other parts of the deep south all sorts of events open with prayer and most people are sincere. But The Lord's Prayer? Not really. It is usually recited at some point during sunday services but it wouldn't be trotted out as some generic all purpose prayer in an attempt to seem Christian."

Has it occurred to you that Melania might have recited the Lord's prayer precisely *because* it's generic, rather than being specific to a single sect of Christianity or to a particular area of the country?

Yes. It occurred to me. And as a christian it struck me as pandering.

Translation: Those who are against Trump are against God.

These are Trump's version of the Nuremberg rallys.

^^^^^THIS^^^^^

It is also subtly anti-Semitic to both Jews and Muslims. It says "you are not included"

On two consecutive days last week, DJT was asked about the rise of anti Semitic incidents in the US. This is the easiest softball question imaginable. Correct answer: "I deplore anti-Semitism. America is better than that." He bleeping dodged the question both days! There was the Holocaust Remembrance Day statement that made no mention of Jews. And now The Lord's Prayer.

What's next, a cross on the lecturn?

"Translation: Those who are against Trump are against God.

"These are Trump's version of the Nuremberg rallys."

Yes, of course you're right! The first lady of the US reciting the Lord's prayer at a political rally is a sure sign that the next Holocaust is nigh! Oh, the humanity!

According to Pat Robertson, a voice of the "religious-right", opposition to Trump is a revolt against God. So, there's that.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2017/02/pat-robertson-opposition-trump-revolt-god/

This must be stopped. Next thing you know, it will be all sorts of oppressive things, like having chaplains in Congress and the military, and the President closing OFFICIAL speeches with "God bless the United States of America."

We're definitely on the slippery slope to an Orwellian theocracy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/america-democracy-crisis-poland_us_5899eb34e4b09bd304bd9d42

Trump's closest advisor, Steve Bannon, is a KNOWN white supremacist with links to neo-Nazis Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer (and others) and he belongs to a far-right Catholic group called the "Church Militant" that envisions some kind of pan-white, pan-European empire of "Christendom" that would wage a global crusade to destroy Islam.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/us/church-militant-theology-is-put-to-new-and-politicized-use.html?_r=0

https://www.richardsilverstein.com/2017/02/01/steve-bannon-church-militant-global-war-islam/

Trump himself lives in a fantasy world of his own making and alters facts to suit. Everyone in his orbit must do the same.

Think back. Could you ever imagine a time where facts don't matter? Science and reason ignored?

Think Margret Atwood instead of George Orwell.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2017 10:30AM by anybody.

Actually, this rally was to exite the racists.

Trump is a racist, but not a normal racist. He is a sinister racist. A normal racist would be happy that Germany took in 1.1 million refugees so that Trump wouldn't have to. But Trump has been highly critical of Germany for doing this. In his rally speech he again criticized Germany and Sweden for taking in the refugees.

He hates Mexicans, people from predominantly Muslim countries, and "the blacks" He's surrounded himself with white supremists like himself, and Bannon that is an anti Semite.

I don't believe that Orange is mentally unstable, but a sinister racist that is purposely creating chaos to create a police state and call in the national guard and military. He is probably creating a coup to create a white zone or States.

Otherwise why the rally????? He's not going to convert the non racists that can't stand him, but he is activating his hardcore racist followers. He is creating a HUGE divide. He thinks whites should run corporations, politics, schools...

I think he is smart enough to know he won't win in 4 years, so he has to act fast to create whatever white dominated country or zone he can.

But with every action he takes, there will be major backlashes.

Sorry, but anyone claiming to have experienced the 'Love of God/Jebus' as I read in your previous posts before and call anyone a 'racist' and infer any who support him 'racists' and the other 'over the top' BS!

All, I can say is I am 'amazed'!!!!!!!! Something, certainly doesn't add up here!

"Actually, this rally was to exite the racists."

Wow, if that's the case, then Trump seems to have failed miserably, considering all of those black people sitting behind him at the rally holding up "Blacks for Trump 2020" posters.

Don't be deliberately obtuse. Look at how much of the black vote he got and get back to me.

"Don't be deliberately obtuse. Look at how much of the black vote he got and get back to me."

Genius, it doesn't matter what percentage of the black vote Trump got. Democrat candidates get 85%-95% of the black vote whether the Republican candidate is Trump or anyone else. My point is that since Trump had black supporters prominently featured at his campaign rally, then the campaign couldn't possibly have been planned to "exite the racists," as the previous poster opined.

I saw those two black people right behind him too! It's like the Mo Tab Choir proudly displaying their giant black participation!

Come on. You live in the South. Talk to your black neighbors. The majority are NOT thrilled with the emboldened racist rhetoric going on.

Yeah, and a few slaves who said they weren't opposed to slavery at some point or another means that slaves loved slavery.

The women against their own voting rights means that women overwhelmingly hated being given the right to vote.

The blacks who were skeptical about integration meant that most African Americans loved segregation.

Women who swept sexual harassment claims under the rug or exaggerated them mean that women aren't ever sexually harassed and most claims are false.

Come on. Critical thinking is your friend. Anecdotal evidence is not.

"Democrat candidates get 85%-95% of the black vote whether the Republican candidate is Trump or anyone else." --How the fuck does that prove your point, exactly? So blacks generally vote Democrat. Does that mean their votes against Trump aren't legitimate? Then old white men's votes aren't legitimate either, because they overwhelmingly vote Republican no matter who the candidate is, so we'll have to discount all of their votes next time because they don't prove anything.

Or maybe it means that Republicans tend to cater to certain interests and to share certain ideologies, and Democrats tend to cater to other interests and to share other ideologies? What a shocker.

And DUH, of COURSE Trump is going to feature the few people of color at his rally. Oh my God, the reasons for that are blatantly obvious. It has nothing to do with an ideology not being racist. Plenty of black people support racist ideologies. Plenty of women support sexism. Plenty of gay people are homophobic in one way or another. Doesn't mean a thing.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2017 02:45PM by Loyalexmo.

Maybe she misread it, thinking her pop was lard.

We are in trouble. Religion kills. Always has. Always will. Power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Yes, clearly allowing political discussions was the right move for RfM.

(Facepalm)

Our orange controller who art in his Ivory Tower, syndicated be thy brand name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done, in the boardroom as it is on the shop floor. Give us tax-free our daily bread, and reschedule long-term our mounting debt, as we collect unforgiven from those who default against us, and lead us not into inflation, but deliver us from negative growth. For thine is the balance sheet, the profit and the road to ruin, for ever, Amen.

I believe there should have been a few minutes devoted to the benefits of Sharia Law.

That would balance out the negative comments.

Yeah, because the opposite of the Lord's Prayer is sharia law.

What the religious right wants is the Christian version of sharia law.

I'm not interested in either. I'm interested in a secular, THINKING country.

Agree.

It's wise to consider what the world would be like if YOUR religion's extreme fringe is in charge or if your YOUR religion becomes a minority. (I would extend that concept beyond religion to any ideology.)

No public displays of religion allow everyone to have their own religion at home and church which I think most people strongly support. Once it is imposed on anyone, expect criticism.

IMO, the Trump base is being had. I have made a boatload of money since he because president because he is all about corporations making the rich richer. Maybe his supporters can get jobs building a wall and be OK with it because they hear the Lord's Prayer.

I'm hopeful I am wrong, but I don't see his base being big on scientific technological education which is what you need for decent jobs in the corporate quest to make money at the top. The foxes are being put in charge of the hen houses with no concern for education, environment, civil rights or anyone but themselves. Mr. Trump, please prove this statement wrong and leave the world a safe and secure place for our grandchildren.

Thanks Erick, for allowing a political thread now and then. I really think a lot of the right or left thinking is hard wired. It's interesting to see how it plays out in the ex-Mo population.

I think she plagarized that prayer. I swear I've read it somewhere before.

LOLOL. Best comment in thread.

I don't and many others are like me. But most people have a deep need for religious dogma and ritual in their lives. Depriving them would be like disallowing food or sex.

If saying that prayer gives many people comfort, I'm glad for them. I don't mind that the First Lady gives them this minute or two of solace. No harm done and it did some good for many who heard it.

I haven't read all the comments, so I don't know if anyone said this yet. After she spoke, and Donald came up, he said that he didn't know she was going to read the Lord's Prayer. Of course, he could be lying.