W. Van Tassel: Obama has no standards

During a recent speech, President Barack Obama, once again, fomented class warfare, misquoted scripture and said he was a Christian. This is a man who believes in the legality of killing unborn children; who believes homosexuality is moral; who believes in a back-handed manner of forcing birth control and abortion policies on religious hospitals; a man whose writings, policies and associates, past and present, all fit the descriptors of a Marxist, a statist, a socialist and a communist.

Not surprisingly, someone who doesn’t know what defines a Christian.

He continued in this speech to quote Jesus, “... to whom much is given, much will be required.” The passage from Luke’s gospel has nothing to do with people’s wealth, but the knowledge of God’s will as revealed in his word.

God, speaking through Paul also said, “... if any would not work, neither should he eat.” Jesus told his apostles “... the poor you will always have with you.”

After misinterpreting scripture for his own personal agenda, Obama went on to draw moral equivalences between Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and atheism.

Are you kidding me?

Obama has no apparent transcendent, normative standards upon which he bases his value system. Like many Americans, those values are an eclectic mix of whatever fits one’s self-centered lifestyle.

The Bible nowhere gives, or even suggests, a government confiscate money from the wealthy for redistribution. We are told to give “from a cheerful heart” of our own free will, 10 percent and hopefully more.

William Van Tassel, Turner

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.

Advertisement

Comments

Jack Tetreault's picture

Obama's Re-election

I believe that the stage has been set for Obama's re-election. Obama has managed to set the republican party aside and is pandering to any constituency that he needs to vote him into office. He has 90% of the media in his back pocket (WHY I don't know, because they will be the first to go when he starts his second term). The talk about how he interprets the Bible is a distraction from what is really going on. Look at what he is doing not what he says and you will come to the inescapable conclusion on where he is taking our country. And at least 51% of us are happily following.
The republicans have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory once again. We deserve Obama. God help us.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

The most irresponsible, irrational letter to find its way into

the Sun.

This is ultra-individualism that denies social responsibility, twists the Bible into an irrational mess, and which maliciously misrepresents and mischaracterizes President Obama.

Jack Tetreault's picture

Irrational Letter

Where did I say anything about the Bible or for that matter say anything that misrepresents Obama? I merely asked that his actions not his words were what people should look at to see where he plans to drive our country. Check out your own thoughts and preconceived notions. I think you may be conflicted. God help us.

Betty Davies's picture

If you worked for a company that deplored blood transfusions...

Suppose you worked for a religious group that was entirely opposed to blood transfusions, even to save a person's life.

Suppose they received government benefits of all sorts, and were obliged to follow the law of the land, but decided that they would remove any payment for blood transfusions from your healthcare package.

If you get in an accident and need a blood transfusion? Pay for it yourself.

They would clearly be trying to foist their religious beliefs on you, even though you do not belong to their church.

This is what is happening with the birth control issue and the Catholic church. They do NOT have the right to force their anti-contraception religious beliefs on non-Catholics who work for them.

MARK GRAVE's picture

If you are referring to the

If you are referring to the Catholic Church, you are free not to association with them, unlike the Federal Government that we are stuck with.

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

A marxist, a statist, a socialist, a communist

You left out sinner and keeper of abominations. Just because you call someone names does not make it so and it makes you look a little unbalanced. The government is not your private church. It is made up of people of many different values and beliefs and in a democracy all of those beliefs have to be accomodated otherwise you call it a theocracy. We do this by separating church and state. All the Republican candidates have signed a pledge to support a law that would ban all forms of birth control other than condoms. This is the same law that was recently defeated in Mississippi by a 70% vote. I would think this makes it a law with very little popular support. In your church you can shove this onto people but in a democracy it probably won't fly so you have to call it something else. Like violating people's religious beliefs. The compromise that Obama reached with the Catholic bishops is exactly what they are already doing in many Catholic institutions. All their bluster is simply to cover up the fact that their main objection was that they didn't want to pay to insure women's health.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Then let the people open

Then let the people open their own wallets and pay for the connectives they want. The Government should not be involved whatsoever.

By the way, spreading your legs is not a women's health issue. Breast cancer, cervical cancer, ..., etc is however.

Mark Wrenn's picture

really?

"The Government should not be involved whatsoever." But a bunch of wrinkly old men in funny hats should be?

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

women's health

Only a man would say that giving birth is not a health issue.

MARK GRAVE's picture

I anticipated this

I anticipated this response.

Intercourse in the context of contraception is not child birth and therefore not a woman’s health issue, so your extrapolation of my comment to support your agenda is disingenuous. Intercourse is a cause to an effect, which is child birth and a woman’s health issue.

I support all forms of birth control, but not on the taxpayer’s dime.
If you are mature enough engage in intercourse, you are mature enough to prevent pregnancy if that is not what you intended.

The responsibility falls squarely on the participants not society.

Perhaps you should focus on attacking my assertions, not my gender.

DONALD FERLAND's picture

I thought the issue on

I thought the issue on contraception was to get insurances to pay for them. And if people buy insurance then why shouldn't the insurance handle this prescription. And like it or not....men don't care what they do as long as they can get between a woman's legs. The only way a woman can guarantee protection is to us it herself or not have sex at all. Typical that a man would think it is the woman's responsibility to not get pregnant. A man's choice of birth control...a condom....a woman's choice of birth control...a prescription. Seems fair....NOT

MARK GRAVE's picture

A woman can masturbate, use

A woman can masturbate, use toys, or have sex with another females, and yes veronica, life is not fair.

DONALD FERLAND's picture

Mark, a man can use the hands

Mark, a man can use the hands God gave him instead of having a caveman attitude like yours. It takes 2 to make a baby and it takes 2 to be responsible....all women want is to make it affordable for them to take care of the contraceptives because men seem to think its not their responsibility and therefore if a child is created it is not their fault. And you wonder why so many need welfare.

MARK GRAVE's picture

I’m just being candid. Today

I’m just being candid. Today contraception is affordable; it need not be free, and we need not ask others to pay for it.

You seem to keep making excuses. If your man is not responsible, perhaps you need to find a responsible man prior to intercourse. Perhaps you should tell your man to pay for said contraception prior to intercourse.

If that is indicative of a caveman attitude, I’m comfortable with it.

MARK GRAVE's picture

It is not my choice, it is

It is not my choice, it is yours - take care of it yourself.

 's picture

As long as there's a

As long as there's a prescription plan that pays for condoms, yes it would be fair. However, I don't know of any plan that does.

RONALD RIML's picture

Yes, Dan...

The Plan that "I might get lucky tonight....."

MARK GRAVE's picture

Ronald, Good luck but don’t

Ronald,

Good luck but don’t send your bill to Joe Public.

RONALD RIML's picture

Sans Condums

Sans Condums - They just send their liddle "Results" to we the taxpayers....

DONALD FERLAND's picture

Dan again a typical male

Dan again a typical male response....you don't need a prescription to get a condom...you buy them over the counter....female contraceptives, on the other hand, can only be bought by a prescription.

 's picture

perhaps the pill could be

perhaps the pill could be made an over the counter medication, would that satisfy you? I personally think prescription plans should cover contraceptives, it would be cheaper in the long run for insurance companies, that said, there is nothing preventing a woman buying condoms and insisting a man use them. Except in the rare instances of irregular menstruation, contraceptives are NOT a medical necessity, it is NOT fixing a medical problem. That said most insurances already provide coverage, and in this compromise, they still will, but the church will not have to inform their employees.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Dan, This is one of the few

Dan,
This is one of the few (perhaps the only) times that I agree with you.

Your summation that contraception is not a medical necessity is spot on.

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

Maturity??

I'm not sure what maturity has to do with it but as I see it it is an issue of fairness. The law is saying that when employers provide health insurance it needs to cover certain things. Those things are already provided for by everyone's employer (not the tax payer by the way) except for some Catholic employers. Some already provide the type of coverage mentioned in the compromise. I know people who have had this type of coverage for a long time. Since these employers hire people of many different faiths to work in their various agencies it is discriminating to provide different insurance to them. Paying for birth control is a health issue because it covers health issues not always directly involving sex just sex organs. Also there are times when someone's health requires not giving birth. I'm making the assumption here that you are not against women having sex? You just feel it is wrong that an insurance company should pay for contraceptives? Would you also be against insurance paying for prostate exams or fertility treatments?

MARK GRAVE's picture

If I’m paying for a Cadillac

If I’m paying for a Cadillac that comes with those amenities, then I’m okay with that.
If can only afford a Hyundai, well I may not get all the amenities, such as expensive fertility treatments.

“Paying for birth control is a health issue because it covers health issues not always directly involving sex just sex organs.”

Then these cases are a medical necessity and should be covered. Birth control to prevent pregnancy is NOT a medical necessity.

Lastly, it is none of my business what people do in the bedroom. That being said, people should not expect me to pay for their activities. You cannot have it both ways. Asking the taxpayer to pay, gives them the right to stick their noises in your business. In other words, if you don't like the Republicans dictating bedroom morality, don't invite them in.

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

Not a medical necessity?

I would say first of all that a person's doctor should be the judge of what is be a medical necessity. Secondly it's obvious that all these men who are experts on female contraception are pretty much full of it. And thirdly no one is asking the taxpayer to pay for anything. The conversation is about equal insurance coverage. It is already covered by most of the insurance plans available today. In fact it is even covered in a different way by many Catholic health plans by referring their workers to a different carrier for this service. As to how expensive it is, I guess it depends on who is paying and what you are getting. Lastly if you are worrying about tax dollars you should be concerned about all the unwanted and neglected children who are born every year to poor people and teens who don't have access to birth control, those who don't want children, or can't afford to take care of them or are just terrible parents. I've seen enough of those to last me a life time and I can assure you they don't all grow up to be governor. If I had my druthers they would be handing out free birth control in every high school and college in the country and there would be free condoms in every hotel, motel and rest room and I would gladly pay tax money for them. It would save us a fortune in prison, welfare expense and chasing deadbeat parents.

MARK GRAVE's picture

“Secondly it's obvious that

“Secondly it's obvious that all these men who are experts on female contraception are pretty much full of it.”

I never claimed to be an expert. I simply said the public should not be forced to pay for it.

I could now throw forth some gender specific stereotypes like you did, but that would not be productive to the dialog, lack professionalism and maturity.

Lastly, Under the Obamacare plan, the government will pay for services for those oh don’t have insurance. Also, any healthcare mandates, such as mandatory contraceptives, will have the cost distributed to all of its members. The root locus for the shared cost borne by everyone is still the government.

DONALD FERLAND's picture

Claire, It is typical for the

Claire, It is typical for the males to consider it the female's responsibility and misunderstand the current issue. Maybe it is time to get men out of politics and elect only women. Then we can make the men have to go to a doctor to get a prescription for the condoms, which makes it more expensive.

MARK GRAVE's picture

William, I will disagree with

William,

I will disagree with you. Obama does have a moral base. It’s called the end justifies the means from the gospel of liberalism.

One of the biggest problems I have with the Obama administration, and government in general, is that they think they know best and everyone sees the world as they do. One shoe does not fit all. The founding fathers knew this; therefore a majority of power remained with the States. This allowed citizens the freedom to pursue happiness in a state and/or community that best reflected their view of the world.

Unfortunately, a heavy handed centralized government does not allow that freedom.

 's picture

Mr. Tassel, judge not lest ye

Mr. Tassel, judge not lest ye be judge. Doesn't that mean anything to you, or do you only quote Bible passages when they agree with what you think?

Mark Wrenn's picture

good for a laugh, Bill

"Marxist, a statist, a socialist and a communist" You forgot to weave in Kenyan and Islamic "other" who learned his evil ways from Lucifer himself!

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Actually, his racist preacher

Actually, his racist preacher Jeremiah Wright took care of that.

Steve  Dosh's picture

W. Van Tassel: Obama has no standards

Bill , Friday 12.02.10 21:10
Kinda' harsh aren't you ? Q: Who is this man who believes in the legality of killing unborn children; who believes homosexuality is moral; who believes in a back-handed manner of forcing birth control and abortion policies on religious hospitals; a man whose writings, policies and associates, past and present, all fit the descriptors of a Marxist, a statist, a socialist and a communist ? I'll tell you . A: Nobody ? 
Ever hear of forgiveness , repentance , and reconciliation ?
Sure , hate is four letter word , also
Please re-read your Bible ; John 8:7 , Matthew 7:1 & Romans 2:1
h t h <3 Happy Valentines Day week /s, Dr. Dosh , Christian

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Are you saying oBAMa does not

Are you saying oBAMa does not support legalized abortion? And, if I'm not mistaken, he is rather soft on same sex marriage.
Yes, we've all heard of forgiveness, repentance, and reconciliation. Why, some of us have even heard of not committing the sin in the first place. What a novel idea.

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

tolerance

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Ever heard of that one. Or even people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

I am familiar with both. Is

I am familiar with both. Is there a point or are we just exchanging philosophical catch phrases?

MICHAEL LEBLANC's picture

Nobody = Obama

I'll consider forgiveness and reconciliation when Obama repents, after he's out of office, and only if there any pieces of the country remaining to try to put back together.

RONALD RIML's picture

And William

The Bible didn't suggest you write pompous letters defending your hypocrisy - but it didn't stop you from doing that of your own free will.

I'm fine with the govt collect taxes and 'redistributing' the $$$, evidently Jesus did too. So we'll render unto Caesar what is Caesar's - and to God what is God's...

MARK GRAVE's picture

Ronald, Let’s play word

Ronald,

Let’s play word substitution and reexamine the phrase.
ren•der (dictionary.com)

verb (used with object)
1. to cause to be or become; make: to render someone helpless.
2. to do; perform: to render a service.
3. to furnish; provide: to render aid.
4. to exhibit or show (obedience, attention, etc.).
5. to present for consideration, approval, payment, action, etc., as an account.

Povide unto Ceasar what is Caesar’s and provide to God what is God’s.
Pay unto Ceasar what is Caesar’s and pay to God what is God’s.
...etc...

I’m simply not seeing how you drew the conclusion that this phase presents proof that god would support transfer of wealth.

RONALD RIML's picture

Oh you Pharisee.....

Mark 12:13

Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. 14They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? 15Should we pay or shouldn’t we?”

But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” 16They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

17Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”

And they were amazed at him.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Amazing words to this day.

Amazing words to this day.

MARK GRAVE's picture

It is still a stretch to say

It is still a stretch to say God supports transfer of wealth. You are not a biblical scholar, so perhaps you are reading this out of context. Moreover, it is still a stretch to draw that conclusion when put it in contemporary context.

RONALD RIML's picture

I provided

a text and source.

Now your provide one to refute me. That's how it works.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Since there is no cogent

Since there is no cogent argument for the existence or non-existence of God, why should I argue as to what God said or has not said, means or does not mean?

Now we can play that game, as we did, but to want end?

Lastly, it is your responsibility to back up your assertion. It is my responsibility to show fault in your assertion – I did that. It is not my responsibility so prove God meant something else.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Where was William being

Where was William being hypocritical?

MICHAEL LEBLANC's picture

Jesus did NOT tell us ...

... that we had to be happy about all that rendering, nor that we had to accept Caesar's word about what was his. But it's exactly what today's Caesar is telling us, along with his belief that God gets nothing.

Liberals love taxes, as long as someone else is paying them.

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

I had not heard

Liberals dont' pay taxes??? Nobody told me!! All these years I paid in for nothing!!

RONALD RIML's picture

God gets nothing??

So you can't deduct any $$$ you donate to the Church from your gross income when doing taxes???

When did that happen???

MARK GRAVE's picture

Mike, You’re wrong. Under the

Mike,
You’re wrong. Under the Obama administration, God gets contraceptives - free of charge.

RONALD RIML's picture

Reference and cite

Reference and cite his alleged 'belief that God gets nothing'

MICHAEL LEBLANC's picture

Cite this, Ron.

Just this week, his imperial majesty voided, by royal decree, that part of the 1st amendment you libbies usually reference to as "the doctrine of the separation of church and state" - when it's convenient. The state, in the person of his sublime highness, climbed over the wall of separation right into the pulpit and delivered a sermon, ordering the church to do his bidding - or else. Of course, after hearing the outcry, he offered a compromise: "If the church doesn't want to, I'll command the insurance companies to do my bidding."

Our emperor bears a remarkable resemblance - in deed, not in visage - to one of the Caesars: Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus.

RONALD RIML's picture

Now there's

Now there's a posting begging for a response..

NOT!!!

MICHAEL LEBLANC's picture

Now there's a typical

Now there's a typical content-free post tacked on the end of a discussion when Ron has run out of even remotely coherent ideas, but he feels he has to say something in his inimitable juvenal style.

RONALD RIML's picture

Ron has ideas

Ron has ideas which he discusses with rational people.

You obviously don't qualify.

Advertisement

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...