Posted on 02/19/2017 1:25:53 PM PST by drewh
On the 30th day of Donald Trump’s presidency, the president and his team seemingly launched his 2020 reelection campaign. Trump, 70, took to the stage to whip up support, denounce the media and present his version of how is administration is running so far. But the rare appearance by Melania Trump, 46, at the event proved just as controversial, and not just for her brief call for unity and subsequent swipe at critics, hers and his.
Twitter immediately lit up with praise and shock at the First Lady leading the crowd in prayer. Trump supporters relished the “Libs flipping out” and heaped praise on her demonstration of faith. Critics heatedly argued that Melania Trump had breached the separation between church and state, some sniping that she had to read the prayer from a sheet, evidently not knowing the text by heart.
However, concern that her prayer somehow shows a new joining together of church and state in the Trump administration is unfounded. Not only is there no official legal separation of church and state in the United States, but presidents have often and openly offered Christian prayers while in office, and never mind their wives, who are not officially elected members of government.
Other presidents showed Christian values in other ways. Jimmy Carter, a Southern Baptist, taught Sunday school while in the White House. Bill Clinton, also a Baptist, could recite lengthy Bible passages from memory and skillfully employed religious language in his speeches. Harry Truman, a devout Baptist, spoke openly about how much his Christian values informed how he governed, but as a pious man was famously quoted saying, “I'm not very much impressed with men who publicly parade their religious beliefs.... I've always believed that religion is something to live by and not to talk about.”
(Excerpt) Read more at haaretz.com ...
Rev Al was in a Memphis Pulpit yesterday with his usual racial divide.
Well; if she was in RUSSIA at the time...
...the USofA has NO such thing as Church-State Separation.
NO NO NO NO !!!!
The original STATEMENTS by our FOUNDING FATHERS referred to the Separation of the POWERS of CHURCH and POWERS of STATE.
...nor even read the Constitution.
These same complainers would have no problem with MOHAMMED being elected PRESIDENT of the US, where he still alive.
HMMMmmm...
In the heat of the Missouri 'Mormon War' of 1838, Joseph Smith made the following claim, "I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was "the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword". So shall it eventually be with us: "Joseph Smith or the Sword!" [1] It is most interesting that a self-proclaimed Christian prophet would liken himself to Mohammed, the founder of Islam. His own comparison invites us to take a closer look as well. And when we do, we find some striking and troubling parallels. Consider the following. Mohammed and Joseph Smith both had humble beginnings. Neither had formal religious connections or upbringing, and both were relatively uneducated. Both founded new religions by creating their own scriptures. In fact, followers of both prophets claim these scriptures are miracles since their authors were the most simple and uneducated of men.[2] Both prophets claim of having angel visitations, and of receiving divine revelation to restore pure religion to the earth again. Mohammed was told that both Jews and Christians had long since corrupted their scriptures and religion. In like manner, Joseph Smith was told that all of Christianity had become corrupt, and that consequently the Bible itself was no longer reliable. In both cases, this corruption required a complete restoration of both scripture and religion. Nothing which preceded either prophet could be relied upon any longer. Both prophets claim they were used of God to restore eternal truths which once existed on earth, but had been lost due to human corruption. Both prophets created new scripture which borrowed heavily from the Bible, but with a substantially new spin. In his Koran, Mohammed appropriates a number of Biblical themes and characters, but he changes the complete sense of many passages, claiming to 'correct' the Bible. In so doing he changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place. In like manner, Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon, much of which is plagiarized directly from the King James Bible. Interestingly, the Book of Mormon claims that this same Bible has been substantially corrupted and is therefore unreliable. In addition, Joseph Smith went so far as to actually create his own version of the Bible itself, the 'Inspired Version' in which he both adds and deletes significant portions of text, claiming he is 'correcting' it. In so doing he also changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place. As a part of their new scriptural 'spin', both prophets saw themselves as prophesied in scripture, and both saw themselves as a continuation of a long line of Biblical prophets. Mohammed saw himself as a continuation of the ministry of Moses and Jesus. Joseph Smith saw himself as a successor to Enoch, Melchizedek, Joseph and Moses. Joseph Smith actually wrote himself into his own version of the Bible by name. Both prophets held up their own scripture as superior to the Bible. Mohammed claimed that the Koran was a perfect copy of the original which was in heaven. The Koran is therefore held to be absolutely perfect, far superior to the Bible and superceding it. In like manner, Joseph Smith also made the following claim. "I told the Brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding its precepts, than by any other book." [3] Despite their claim that the Bible was corrupt, both prophets admonished their followers to adhere to its teachings. An obvious contradiction, this led to selective acceptance of some portions and wholesale rejection of others. As a result, the Bible is accepted by both groups of followers only to the extent that it agrees with their prophet's own superior revelation. Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith taught that true salvation was to be found only in their respective religions. Those who would not accept their message were considered 'infidels', pagans or Gentiles. In so doing, both prophets became the enemy of genuine Christianity, and have led many people away from the Christ of the Bible. Both prophets encountered fierce opposition to their new religions and had to flee from town to town because of threats on their lives. Both retaliated to this opposition by forming their own militias. Both ultimately set up their own towns as model societies. Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith left unclear instructions about their successors. The majority of Mohammed's followers, Sunni Muslims, believe they were to elect their new leader, whereas the minority, Shiite Muslims, look to Ali ibn Abi lib, whom they consider Divinely appointed, as the rightful successor to Muhammad, and the first imam. (Ali was the cousin and son-in-law of the Islamic prophet Muhammad). Similarly, the majority of Joseph Smith's followers, Mormons, believed their next prophet should have been the existing leader of their quorum of twelve apostles, whereas the minority, RLDS, believed Joseph Smith's own son should have been their next prophet. Differences on this issue, and many others, have created substantial tension between these rival groups of each prophet. Mohammed taught that Jesus was just another of a long line of human prophets, of which he was the last. He taught that he was superior to Christ and superceded Him. In comparison, Joseph Smith also made the following claim. "I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him, but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet." [4] In light of these parallels, perhaps Joseph Smith's claim to be a second Mohammed unwittingly became his most genuine prophecy of all. [1] Joseph Smith made this statement at the conclusion of a speech in the public square at Far West, Missouri on October 14, 1838. This particular quote is documented in Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, second edition, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), p. 230-231. Fawn Brodie's footnote regarding this speech contains valuable information, and follows. “Except where noted, all the details of this chapter [16] are taken from the History of the [Mormon] Church. This speech, however, was not recorded there, and the report given here is based upon the accounts of seven men. See the affidavits of T.B. Marsh, Orson Hyde, George M. Hinkle, John Corrill, W.W. Phelps, Samson Avard, and Reed Peck in Correspondence, Orders, etc., pp. 57-59, 97-129. The Marsh and Hyde account, which was made on October 24, is particularly important. Part of it was reproduced in History of the [Mormon] Church, Vol. III, p. 167. See also the Peck manuscript, p. 80. Joseph himself barely mentioned the speech in his history; see Vol. III, p. 162. [2] John Ankerberg & John Weldon, The Facts on Islam, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1998), pp.8-9. Eric Johnson, Joseph Smith & Muhammed, (El Cajon, CA: Mormonism Research Ministry, 1998), pp. 6-7. [3] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.4, pp.461. [4] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.6, pp.408-409. |
No, not refuting, adding, helping those that read understand the why’s and wherefore’s of certain persons who write these garbage headlines.
A First Lady has a ceremonial post and she has great influence on the President.
A President can introduce proposals to Congress that are then introduced as legislation.
IF a President were to issue a legislative proposal that violated an amendment to the Constitution, it would be a violation of a sworn oath.
If a First Lady in her official capacity advocated on behalf of her husband a violation of the Constitution, it could be seen as an attempt to defy his sworn oath.
If a First Lady were to advocate an amendment to the Constitution, that would make it legal and constitutional for her husband to follow through with a formal proposal to Congress on the First Lady’s advocacy.
Melania Trump as First Lady led a crowd of supporters with a Christian Prayer.
Melania Trump in her official capacity did not advocate that Christianity should be favored over other religions.
President Trump is not being influenced by his wife in her capacity as First Lady to violate the 1st Amendment thereby violating his sworn oath.
So the headline is garbage as is the person behind it.
How much money does a First Lady get paid?
Yeah, Congress needs to pass a law that prevents the exercise of her religion thereof. Oh wait....
Twittards.
But since SCOTUS has creatively sanctioned homosexual marriage and thus outlawed states which outlaw it, then it has interpreted the Constitution as being pro LGBT. The nation that sanctions what God calls an abomination is under condemnation and headed for damnation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.