Does This Mean Andrew Sullivan Will Start Calling him a “Christianist”?

9 Comments »

1. Well, will Obama be supporting policies that force the Christian religion into secular law at the expense of those who don’t follow Christianity?

   If not, then I think he’s safe from the label (not that your “I can haz wordcount” wasn’t amusing).

   Comment by torrentprime — June 9, 2009 @ 4:25 pm - June 9, 2009

2. Obama must be desperate to convince people he’s good.

   Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 9, 2009 @ 4:25 pm - June 9, 2009

3. i don’t think you understand the meaning of the term “christianist”

   Comment by chad — June 9, 2009 @ 4:33 pm - June 9, 2009

4. Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.

   Comment by TnnsNE1 — June 9, 2009 @ 4:59 pm - June 9, 2009

5. hmm, i wonder if that could have anything to do with trying to reassure ignorant people that he’s not a scary muslim…

   Comment by bob — June 9, 2009 @ 6:06 pm - June 9, 2009

6. I don’t know bob, are you reassured?

   I for one know he’s not a muslim. Muslims believe in a higher power, President Obama only believes in himself.

   Comment by The_Livewire — June 9, 2009 @ 6:43 pm - June 9, 2009

7. There’s a part in Fred Barnes’s Rebel in Chief where he pointed out that Clinton had mentioned God or Jesus more often than Bush.

   Well, will Obama be supporting policies that force the Christian religion into secular law at the expense of those who don’t follow Christianity?

   Yeah. We were promised that Bush would institute a theocracy. Didn’t happen. Yet another liberal lie shot to hell. No, I suspect Chairman Obama will support policies to force the Christian religion out of the country along with freedom and liberty.

   Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 9, 2009 @ 10:20 pm - June 9, 2009

8. President Obama only believes in himself.

   He is a cold-hearted, angry and vengeful god.

   Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 9, 2009 @ 10:21 pm - June 9, 2009

9. Sullivan and his groupies apparently define “Christianists” as people who try to use the law to force others to support their religious beliefs against their will — or as torrent defined it above, forcing “the Christian religion into secular law at the expense of those who don’t follow Christianity”.

   But of course neither are capable of providing any examples where anything of the sort has occurred, because it hasn’t.

   Gays are free in every sense of the word except one — they are not free to take other people’s money as recompense for engaging in a behavior the majority do not deem worthy of recompense.

   Not being entitled to other people’s money then, in the delusional minds of the left, qualifies as “an expense”.

   The truth is, Sullivan and torrent are projecting their own fanatical behavior onto people who do not share it. They are the ones who– without popular support in any state of the union — are trying to force Americans to accept the falsehood that there is no difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality. They are attempting to force the public, when you get right down to it, to treat anal sex the same as it does reproduction.

   Shouldn’t Sullivan and his groupies then be called Sodomists?

   Comment by American Elephant — June 10, 2009 @ 2:58 am - June 10, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Live preview of comment