*
Kim's Comments
Kim Kovac

Part Two: Character of a King, opps sorry, I meant President

Posted Saturday, May 2, 2009, at 12:08 AM
Comments
View 4 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Oh, he is a character for sure. He will join the Gov. of IL. (I am sure a friend) in the taxpayer's Iron Bar Ranch before his time on earth is up. Cannot wait for the day. They like smurfs in jail.

    -- Posted by OpinionMissy on Sat, May 2, 2009, at 10:37 AM
  • Kim Kovac certainly appreciated King George and Torture-Master Cheney leading us into wars without end. Don't worry, the Grand Old Clup (sorry, I meant Party), led us to two wars and a ruined economy. O how I miss the good old days of the Torture-master when deception went unquestioned.

    -- Posted by jboud on Fri, May 8, 2009, at 1:44 PM
  • Kim, perhaps you are clueless about universities. When political figures give speeches at universities their symbols are generally not displayed. A display of those symbols would suggest that the university endorses the person's view. I doubt that we want our presidents endorsing religion. When we go to the polls, we are not electing a religious leader. Even if we were, are we going to be electing a Jewish, catholic, protestant, Mormon, religious leader etc? It is not the business of any president to endorse religions or impose his religious views on others. We live in a pluralistic society and those who insist on imposing their meaningless religious dogma on others, will continue whining and be disappointed. The right-wing always insist that we should run a theocracy. America is not a theocracy.

    -- Posted by jboud on Fri, May 8, 2009, at 1:53 PM
  • Point taken. However, I don't think that when Obama was trying to get the vote, he went into churches with his staff asking them to cover images or symbols of God. He was not willing to offend anyone. This President used God when he needed Him and has become silent now that he has the power. The covering of those symbols speaks against the man that he tried to make the voters believe he was. That is my only point. I didn't post that to make any point about religion or symbols.

    And I don't think that a President in the past had his staff covering symbols. It would have offended alot of people. What purpose does it serve to make a point of covering religious symbols? I don't hold to the idea that statues, paintings and such are actually that pleasing to God. It seems to go against what He spoke to his people about, the "no graven image" thing and all. I have never bowed down nor prayed to such. However, I speak to the statement that it makes to his character. While campaigning, he used religion to further his agenda. He didn't hesitate to use the church pulpit in the early years but turned his back on his own church when his pastor got heat from the media. He used talk of prayer to make people of a religious nature think that he was spiritual, yet after election, he won't even comment on a national day of prayer. Other Presidents were open about their beliefs even when it caused them trouble. Many of them openly prayed and had regular prayer breakfasts and meetings with spirtual leaders.

    -- Posted by kimkovac on Sun, May 10, 2009, at 10:42 AM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: