No Homosexuals at Obama’s Ramadan : Why Not?
Obama is the FIRST President to actively denigrate Christians and Christianity while simultaneously bowing down to Muslims and Sharia law.
Were there any “gay” couples invited to the official Obama White House Ramadan meal?Why not?Obama made a great show of having many homosexuals at his “Easter egg roll” rubbing Christians’ noses in what he called a “teachable moment” against “the forces of homophobia and hate.”Easter is Christianity’s major holy day. Why did he not mock and insult Muslims in the same way?Why did Obama not shove a “teachable moment” into the faces of Muslims?Earlier this year, Obama forced Christians to watch in dismay as he hijacked the Christian holiday of Easter to endorse homosexual child rearing, and he used Ramadan to endorse the construction of a massive mosque on the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
He clearly hates Christianity and embraces Islam, as well as homosexuality. It’s only unclear which one he prefers, or fears, more. It seems to be Islam since he didn’t include any gays, lesbians, transgenders, transexuals, cross-dressers, or pre-ops at his Ramadan celebration.This is a deadly double standard by a man who refused to attend the National Day of Prayer breakfast, refused to attend the Boy Scouts of America (because of their policy of protecting boys from potential “gay” predators) and wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.
For the record, Infidel Bloggers Alliance is, in general, pro-homosexual. By that I mean, the principal bloggers here believe in Equal Rights for all. I can not speak for everyone, but personally I believe Homosexuality is a natural occurring phenomenon in this very unnatural world.He and his wife Michele attended Jeremiah Wright’s hate-filled “church” that promoted overt racism and black liberation theology for years. This is Obama’s sole connection with what the media think is legitimate Christianity.Why is the media as silent about Obama’s purposeful neglect of the gay, lesbians and transgender community” when it comes to his Muslim holiday celebration as they are about that fact that the California city of Bell’s entire corruption scandal was 100% Democrat?
In a world where parents spit out "humans" who have natural pre-disposition to murder, theft, gossip, and all sorts of other "evil", it does not bother me in the least that there are human beings who are born with the pre-disposition towards homosexuality, and then fulfill that pre-disposition by actually having sex with someone they desire.
It does bother me greatly, however, that there are human beings who believe we ought to be Free to choose to accept or reject God's Grace, but at the same time believe that "Virtue" ought to be forced upon their fellow humans in the realm of their own bedroom.
What a preposterous, ignorant idea.
But, back to the article.
It is even more preposterous, ignorant, and completely lacking in virtue for Barack Obama to cater to Islam's twisted whims, while denigrating Christianity. I am not surprised. He is a preposterous, ignorant and twisted human being himself.
6 comments:
Though I was personally dissapointed at no Christmas message from Obama I do not see any denegration.
Also, would Obama bring "gays" to say a bash for the visiting Pope? No, in fact no President worth his salt would, it is called being tactful.
Admittingly, I tend towards the "do not ask" and am still considering my position on homosexuality, but I certainly will condemn anyone who is bigoted towards or discriminates against the homosexual and lesbian community.
Damien Charles QC,
Weather he is being tactful or not in this case, he did invite gay people to some traditionally Christian celebrations, which is offensive to some Christians, mainly Christian fundamentalists. Off course one could argue that those holidays have been largely secularized, but even so, they are still associated with Christianity because of their history and origins, and the religious right at least wouldn't like them being associated with gay people at all. So I think its a valid question to ask, why is he not being more in your face, when it comes to Muslims? Many of them, or even more homophobic, than the religious right, in general.
It's called hypocrisy.
'So I think its a valid question to ask, why is he not being more in your face, when it comes to Muslims? Many of them, or even more homophobic, than the religious right, in general.'
No shit, ya think?
Under statement of the year.
Damien,
I have no doubt that there is also politics involved, every politician does or has done that.
As you have said, many of the events are now secularised and though personally it makes no difference to me, I can understand the decision he has made.
Damien Charles QC,
I'm not denying that there are politics involve, but I still think its kind of hypocritical of him.
Post a Comment