Talmud Defenders Must Lie and Obfuscate To Cover The Insidious Texts

Thank goodness for people like Mr Hoffman who can intelligently call  them on the BS. They call him a history revisionist, when history is already revised to fit support of Jews and Zionism:

Christian scholar Michael Hoffman’s reply to Dr. Asaf Yedidya’s lecture at Oxford University, “Nazi Attacks on the Talmud: Anti-Semitic Readings of Jewish Texts.”

A video of this lecture was online as of March 18, 2012 on the website:

www.chabad.org/multimedia/media_cdo/aid/1801054/jewish/Nazi-Attacks-on-the-Talmud.htm

In his reply, Hoffman points out the use of misdirection and censored texts in the Oxford lecture and the numerous errors and omissions employed to demonize Talmud critics and whitewash the Babylonian Talmud. Hoffman documents Talmudic racism and permission for homicide by quoting from the Gemara itself, as well as rabbinic authorities having the status of Posek Ha-dor and Gadol Ha-dor.

Michael Hoffman is the author of the Amazon Kindle book, “Judaism Discovered” and a condensed paperback version for the general reader, “Judaism’s Strange Gods.”

For more information visit www.revisionisthistory.org

Understand that the superiority complex is instilled in many Jews from a very young age. Realize where this comes from when they tell you they are not observant or even are atheist. Religious texts and common holidays , such as Purim (which are based upon religious stories), are still rooted in the “religion”. This doesn’t make a Jew anyone’s enemy, but it explains a lot about the why’s and how’s. Insist on them deciding if ‘being Jewish’ is a race or religion, then point out that if it is a ‘race’, that they sure don’t look like the people from Palestine, but more like Europeans. If they insist that it is a religion, point out that their “Holiest Texts” are also some of the most vile, racist, murder instructing, world domineering writings to have ever been published and that their religion reflects those books to a T.

The ‘religion’ allows them to set themselves apart, to belittle anyone and everyone (especially Muslims because they want their land, but also Christians to use as their slaves and underlings) and to use others in their domination. Any elementary examination of their own religious writings confirms this, so your accusations of lies and anti-Semitism are malarkey. And using the word ‘domination’ is not over-doing it, either. Look at anything they get their hands on (movies, information, TV, education, politics, etc) and you see how they have infiltrated them all and rule the category.

How is that possible?

Either the 3% of the population number is a complete  hoax or there is some other means (money, connections, tribal unity… whatever) that allow them to flourish and gain controlling footholds within our society. It is impossible for 3% of the population to have such a significant directory influence without some help.

Granted, much of the help comes from ignorant Christians who are hell-bent on becoming popular or a part of the control mechanism. Much of the help comes from the hijacked Christian faith/teachings which disallow any scrutiny of Judaism, and especially Zionism (for those two things are hardly the same) and to bring Jesus back and force Armageddon. These people need to understand what the driving factor is.

Another point that always seems incredulous to many is that it seems evident that most of history is revised from the truth. Howard Zinn’s (a Jew, himself) book, “A People’s History of the United States” discusses many points along history where the official narrative is a lie. How the New World was found, conquered (along with the American west). Revising history is the game plan for those who control what they want to be known about the world and obviously to misdirect from the truth for whatever reason they have.

Various stories of the Bible cannot be confirmed, except via that book. Reasons given for wars are lies. False flag events that are hidden from the public come out in the open when many of the culprits are dead. Etc, etc, etc.

So, why would we believe everything about the Jews’ brand of history (which hides significant issues and uses deceit to sway people to support them). Should we question the Biblical narratives when local history and/or science cannot confirm the stories? Shouldn’t we pursue truth, no matter where it leads?

Notice the date from this publication on the front page of Britain's Daily Express, March 24, 1933 (6 years before WWII)

You can read the text of that paper here.

This brings me to one of the hardest subjects that I have ever covered here. Should we question the Holocaust? I know many will recoil from even my “questioning” all the “facts” regarding this subject, but is that because you KNOW its true or that you were not told the whole truth to begin with? And, if it is evident that history lies, as has been shown over and over again (usually its the conquerors who get to write the history books), why NOT question the Holocaust? Did it even happen. If so, to what extent?

Watch this for a good example of why some detail must be false regarding portions of the Holocaust storyline (and this barely scratches the surface of this subject):

From The Barnes Review…

Dean Irebodd’s “Auschwitz: The Surprising Hidden Truth”

Auschwitz—this is the infamous wartime camp in Poland where the Germans are said to have killed at least one million Jews in homicidal gas chambers, misusing the insecticide called “Zyklon B.” Auschwitz has become a buzzword for the Holocaust. It is said to have been the epicenter of this mother of all genocides. Here, the Germans are said to have employed their engineering ingenuity in order to mass murder their helpless victims in an industrial fashion with the highest efficiency possible. First they were shoved into chemical slaughthouses by the thousands, then their corpses were burned in rapid sequence in crematory ovens

But does that story stand up to scrutiny? This video looks into some of the common claims made by survivors about what happened at Auschwitz. Some of the questions asked in this context are: Was it possible to fill the gas chambers with victims as it is claimed? Would the Jews, supervised only by other Jews, have cooperated in their own mass slaughter? What doors were used to lock in 2,000 Jews struggling for their lives? How efficient was the cremation process really? How many Auschwitz inmates left the camp alive to tell the world what they had seen?

This video gives the answers to these and to other questions, backed-up by documents and expert testimony. The results are astounding, if not to say: shocking. The discrepancies between survivor claims on the one hand and technical as well as physical reality on the other hand reveal the surprising truth about Auschwitz, which is not what most people think it is.

Watch this video, and you’ll see the world around you with different eyes!

Note: This video has been peer-reviewed by two leading experts on the Holocaust in order to ascertain the accuracy of its contents. It includes a written appendix with sources and a written discussion of issues omitted or merely briefly touched upon in the movie.

Copyright Notice: This movie has been released to the public domain for educational purposes only. It may be copied and distributed free of charge only. No commercial use is permitted. If copied and distributed, no changes to the movie are permitted without the prior written consent of the author/director of the movie.

Follow @BuelahMan

Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or WordPress.com

Murfreesboro — Smurfeezboro

knoxnews.com

Knoxville News Sentinel Editorial March 3 2011: regarding the article about the upcoming legislation regarding No Muslims allowed in Tennessee

A bill in the Tennessee Legislature that would basically outlaw Islam in Tennessee is obviously unconstitutional and an embarrassment to the entire state.
State Sen. Bill Ketron, R-Murfreesboro, the legislation’s sponsor, should withdraw the odious bill and issue an apology to all state residents, Muslims in particular.
The bill ostensibly addresses terrorism but in reality outlaws a religion. That’s unacceptable, unsupportable and unconscionable. It’s also unconstitutional on a variety of fronts.
Ketron’s bill would require the state attorney general to label any organization that advocates adherence to Shariah, the Muslim religious and legal proscriptions, as a terrorist group. The organization’s finances would be frozen immediately and members could face felony charges that could result in as many as 15 years in prison. Employees, presumably including school teachers and administrative assistants, are specifically targeted for possible prosecution.
A disclaimer that the law doesn’t apply to peaceful followers of Islam is laughable.
Based on the Quran, examples drawn from the life of Muhammad and a long history of scholarly thought, Shariah is more than a set of laws. It also instructs Muslims how to practice their faith.
All Muslims follow Shariah – which, like Christian and Jewish traditions, has conservative, moderate, liberal and fundamentalist interpretations – to some degree. Every Muslim organization can be construed as a Shariah organization, so the bill simply would outlaw Islam.
The bill also would set up the state attorney general as a grand inquisitor, giving the office sole authority to designate an outlaw organization using secret evidence out of the scrutiny of the public. Organizations wouldn’t be able to appeal the designation for two years.
Jailing Tennessee residents for practicing a religion is terrible to contemplate. The bill is repugnant and runs counter to America’s tolerance of all religious faiths. The Constitution forbids the enactment of a law that would interfere with the free exercise of religion, and Islam is one of the world’s oldest faiths.
The bill didn’t originate in Tennessee. According to the Associated Press, the Tennessee Eagle Forum gave the bill’s text to Ketron and House Speaker Pro Tempore Judd Matheny, R-Tullahoma. Eagle Forum state President Bobbie Patray told the AP it was drafted by David Yerushalmi, an Arizona-based attorney who runs the Society of Americans for National Existence, a nonprofit that claims following Shariahh is treasonous.
If the bill does become law, a court challenge is all but certain. Gadeir Abbas, a staff attorney for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, was quoted in the Tennessean as saying at an interfaith protest rally in Nashville on Tuesday that his organization would file a lawsuit the instant the governor signs the bill.
Christians, Jews and followers of other religious faiths, plus those who follow no religion, should join in denouncing this bill. Legislators should condemn it, too. Gov. Bill Haslam should announce plans to veto the legislation should lawmakers pass it.
Religious liberty is at the core of American values. Ketron’s bill poses a threat to those values and must be defeated.
© 2011, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or WordPress.com

Retro Essay– “…Under God…”

Retro Essay  from ‘Letters from America’

The pledge of allegiance

Monday mornings in almost every public elementary school in America the children rise and then they recite (or they could choose to listen to the class chanting) the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States. It’s a single sentence and this is how it goes:

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Last week it was announced in Washington that next February 2004 the nine justices of the Supreme Court will meet one morning and begin to consider the complaint of an atheist parent who says it’s against the Constitution that he should have to make his daughter listen to “a ritual proclaiming that there is a god”.

When it does come up I imagine the young atheist will have a hard time restraining himself from a cry of shame as he stands and watches the nine justices bow their heads in prayer, as is their custom.

What clause in the Constitution does he believe is being violated? Why the very first amendment, the first item in the Bill of Rights.

It is written in the most guileless English: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

What could be simpler? What could be also vaguer? – The moment you reflect what the 18th Century meant by “establishment” for instance.

So many words have changed their meaning drastically since the 17th and 18th centuries – much of the Bible, much more of Shakespeare, is not understandable without explanatory footnotes.

To the Founding Fathers who wrote it “establishment” meant a religious sect.

What a pity they didn’t write the sentence the other way round: “Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Oh but by the way, we’re not going as a nation to have a preferred sect, it’s too late for that, it would lead to endless dissension between the Congregationalists of Massachusetts and Connecticut, the Catholics of Maryland, the Quakers of Pennsylvania..

“So, to be clearly understood, gentlemen, let’s make it plain: we shall not have a national religion like the Church of England.

“That being so it must be made equally plain that no law of Congress can prohibit any man or woman practising his/her own religion freely, everywhere – in church, in the street, in Congress, at home, away – freely.”

For 150 years this reading was simply assumed by most people. As a learned history of the Supreme Court tells us: from the founding era at the end of the 18th Century, well into the 20th Century, religion was thought to be a significant and legitimate component of American public life.

By the 1940s, however, American public life had become largely secular.

One short, offhand sentence covers a tremendous fact: the decline of religious belief in the general population of the Western nations, deeper still in Europe.

In France in 1960 one family in three were weekly churchgoers. Today it’s one in eight.

In England today only six people in a hundred claim to be devoutly religious. In the United States the comparable devout figure is 65%.

But there’s been a dramatic increase in the Americans who don’t want religion to appear in any shape or form in public life.

Hence these continual appeals to the courts, from keeping religious symbols of any public building, all the way to banning the use of the word god in political speech.

To put it more formally, the atheists have gone bananas in the extent to which they misinterpret the first amendment – as you’ll see from the final appeal of this young father who wants “under God” taken out of the pledge of allegiance.

Well, let’s go back to the pledge and its invention.

It was composed by an ex-minister and published in a magazine called The Youth Companion.

When? That’s the point – 1892.

The Congress leapt at a happy idea. Since the upcoming 12th October marked the 400th anniversary of Columbus’s discovery of America, that would be the perfect day to introduce the chanting of the pledge as a daily ritual in the elementary schools.

And so it was. But no mention of under God. “One nation under God” did not appear until 1954.

Why 1954 I wondered? I never saw a story explaining why. I thought some digging was necessary and it’s turned out that a little digging produced a load of pay dirt.

In early 1954 at a conference of the four allied powers occupying Germany, the United States, Britain and France were all for reunifying Germany under one government.

The Soviets were absolutely opposed and had in Europe armies five times the size of the combined allied armies. So that was that.

Far away in French Indochina the French were collapsing against Vietnamese guerrillas fighting to be independent.

The French begged President Eisenhower to help with American troops. Eisenhower said no troops.

But he made an impassioned public assertion that the defeat of Communism in South East Asia was vital. That if one country went Communist the neighbours could fall too, like a row of dominoes.

This was a pressing fear in Washington at that time, fears for Malaysia, Indochina, for Burma and India.

Also 1954 was the heyday of a middle western senator who, after a high State Department official had been convicted of passing papers to the Soviet Union, launched an immensely popular campaign to root Communists out of American government.

He gave us alarming numbers but he never actually came up with a positive Communist who had not declared himself.

Nevertheless, such was the fear of the time that from Moscow to Asia “godless Communism” might prevail.

President Eisenhower, many public men and women, used that phrase over and over.

And it was by executive order on Flag Day 1954 that President Eisenhower ordered the pledge now to read “I pledge allegiance to the flag” and so on, “and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God indivisible.”

So far as the young protesting father’s concerned, the villain of the peace is not – as most people think – the Congress of the United States but the late, great Ike, supreme commander of the invading forces in Europe and later president of the United States.

If the young father wins surely somebody will then mount a crusade to have erased from all dollar bills of every denomination the sentence printed in brazen capital letters: “In God we trust”.

And if he wins that will entail destroying every bill and totally reprinting the United States currency.

It would cost the Treasury – the taxpayer, that is – well, it’s been figured maybe $7-8bn.

But what’s that to the average taxpayer? He’s already going to have to find 20 billions for tidying up Iraq.

A recent visitor from Europe remarked at some point how often in daily conversation here he had heard the passing phrase “just before 9/11″, or “about a month after September 11″, or “Oh, 11 September changed all that.”

I tried to explain to him how we felt personally outraged, what a traumatic event it was and perhaps one you could not feel if you saw it on television from 3,000 miles away.

To have had this feeling and find it still there deep inside, since we were never told that American intelligence agents had foiled plotted atrocities as large and murderous as the bombing of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

How I wish I had read two years ago a piece I came on the other night when I picked up one of my standby bedtime books, Mark Twain’s Life on the Mississippi.

He’s writing about a recollection of life in the South where he’d spent so much time of his youth.

This passage, however, is about a sharp distinction between social conversation in the North and the South in the decade after the end of the Civil War. I imagine this piece must have been written about late 1870s or 1880.

“In the North one hears the war mentioned in social conversation once a month, sometimes once a week but as a distinct subject for talk it has long been relieved of duty.

“Given a company of six gentlemen, four possibly five were not in the field at all. Add six ladies and you will have added six people who saw little of the dread realities of the war and ran out of talk about it years ago.

“The case is very different in the South. There every man you meet was in the war and every lady you meet saw the war. The interest in the war is still vivid and constant, it’s what AD is, elsewhere they date from it.

“Things happened ‘since the war’ or ‘during the war’ or ‘about two years after the war’.

“You can’t talk pale, inconsequent matters when you’ve got a crimson fact in your head that you’re burning to fetch out. This gives the inexperienced stranger better than anything else the sense of what a vast and comprehensive calamity invasion is.”

Invasion is the key word. We felt that the bombing of the Towers and the Pentagon was an invasion of this country.

We came, as perhaps Europeans could not, to feel that this was the beginning of a war, of the Third World War and an alarming novelty of war: one against a worldwide enemy who is invisible

… and that insane amount of funds was spent for?????????????

What exactly does this accomplish? … and for what cause was it done…? and really, what are they really thinking this will be used for???… and if they have no idea how it will effect the globe, i.e.: weather, water, quakes etc… or the ultimate fear some scientists have– what are they doing?? Just because ‘mankind’ CAN do something doesn’t mean ‘mankind’ should do it.

Landmark experiment to unlock secrets of Big Bang could cause end of the world, say scientists in court bid to halt it. It has cost 4.4billion+ and is designed to unlock the secrets of the Big Bang.
But rather than providing vital information about the beginning of life, the world’s biggest experiment could cause the end of the world, say scientists. They fear that the Large Hadron Collider – due to be switched on in nine days’ time – will create a black hole that could swallow the planet. By smashing sub-atomic particles together at close to the speed of light, the LHC aims to recreate the conditions that existed a fraction of a second after the birth of the universe or Big Bang, shedding light on the building blocks of life.

But critics claim that the ‘time machine’, which has been built 300ft beneath the French-Swiss border near Geneva, could instead spawn a shower of mini-black holes.  Within four years, one of these ‘celestial vacuums’ could have swollen to such a size that it is capable of sucking the Earth inside-out, said Otto Rossler, one of a group of scientists mounting a last-minute court challenge to the project.

They claim the experiment violates the right to life under the European Convention of Human Rights. However, the case at the European Court of Human Rights is not expected to delay the switch on, scheduled for Wednesday of next week. Professor Rossler, a German chemist, said the European Organization for Nuclear Research, or CERN, has admitted its project will create black holes but doesn’t consider them to be a risk.
He warned: ‘My own calculations have shown it is quite plausible that these little black holes survive and will grow exponentially and eat the planet from the inside. I have been calling for CERN to hold a safety conference to prove my conclusions wrong but they have not been willing.’

Those involved in the project have dismissed the claims as ‘absurd’ and insist that extensive safety assessments have found the experiment, which is funded by 20 countries, including the UK, to be safe.  A report written earlier this year stated: ‘Over the past billions of years, nature has already generated on Earth as many collisions as about a million LHC experiments – and the planet still exists.’  The lifespan of any mini-black holes would be ‘very short’, it added.

CERN spokesman James Gillies said the arguments before the European Court of Human Rights had been answered in ‘extensive safety assessments’.
He told the Sunday Telegraph: ‘The Large Hadron Collider will not be producing anything that does not happen routinely in nature due to cosmic rays. If they were dangerous we would know about it already.’

Scientists have used large particle colliders to smash atoms and pieces of atoms together for 30 years, but this machine has attracted so much attention because it is the most powerful ever built.  In the LHC beams of protons will be propelled through an 18-mile-long circular tunnel. More than 5,000 magnets lining the tunnel will accelerate the hundreds of billions of tiny particles to almost the speed of light, allowing them to complete one circuit in one-11,000th of a second.

There will be two beams going in opposite directions, each packing as much energy as a car traveling at 100mph.  When they reach almost the speed of light, they will be smashed head on into each other, breaking them into their constituent parts, including, perhaps, the building blocks of the universe

Pastor Rick’s Test

The Candidates Submit, and a Principle Suffers

At the risk of heresy, let it be said that setting up the two presidential candidates for religious interrogation by an evangelical minister — no matter how beloved — is  supremely wrong.  It is also un-American. 

For the past several days, since mega-pastor Rick Warren interviewed Barack Obama and John McCain at his Saddleback Church, most political debate has focused on who won.  Was it the nuanced, thoughtful Obama, who may have convinced a few more skeptics that he isn’t a Muslim? Or was it the direct, confident McCain, who breezes through town-hall-style meetings the way Obama sinks three-pointers from the back court?  The candidates’ usual supporters felt validated in their choices. McCain convinced and comforted with characteristic certitude those who are most at ease with certitude; Obama convinced and comforted with his characteristic intellectual ambivalence those who are  most at ease with ambivalence. 

The winner, of course, was Warren, who has managed to position himself as political arbiter in a nation founded on the separation of church and state.  The loser was America.  In his enormously successful book “The Purpose-Driven Life,” Warren begins: “It’s not about you.” Agreed. Nor is this criticism aimed at Christians, evangelicals, other believers or nonbelievers — or at Warren, who is a good man with an exemplary record of selfless works. Few have walked the walk with as much determination or success. 

This is about higher principles that are compromised every time we pretend we’re not applying a religious test when we’re really applying a religious test.  It is true that no one was forced to participate in the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency and that both McCain and Obama are free agents. Warren has a right to invite whomever he wishes to his church and to ask them whatever they’re willing to answer.  His format and questions were interesting and the answers more revealing than what the usual debate menu provides. But does it not seem just a little bit odd to have McCain and Obama chatting individually with a preacher in a public forum about their positions on evil and their relationship with Jesus Christ? 

The past few decades of public confession and Oprah-style therapy have prepared us perfectly for a televangelist probing politicians about their moral failings. Warren’s Q&A wasn’t an inquisition exactly, but viewers would be justified in squirming.  What is the right answer, after all? What happens to the one who gets evil wrong? What’s a proper relationship with Jesus? What’s next? Interrogations by rabbis, priests and imams? What candidate would dare decline on the basis of mere principle?  Both Obama and McCain gave “good” answers, but that’s not the point. They shouldn’t have been asked.

Is the American electorate now better prepared to cast votes knowing that Obama believes that “Jesus Christ died for my sins and I am redeemed through him,” or that McCain feels that he is “saved and forgiven”?  What does that mean, anyway? What does it prove? Nothing except that these men are willing to say whatever they must — and what most Americans personally feel is no one’s business — to win the highest office. 

Warren tried to defuse criticism about staging the interviews in his church by saying that though “we” believe in the separation of church and state, “we” don’t believe in the separation of faith and politics. Faith, he said, “is just a worldview, and everybody has some kind of worldview. It’s important to know what they are.”  Presumably “we” refers to Warren’s church of fellow evangelicals. And while, yes, everybody has some kind of worldview, it shouldn’t be necessary in a pluralistic nation of secular laws to publicly define that view in Christian code.  For the moment, let’s set aside our curiosity about what Jesus might do in a given circumstance and wonder what our Founding Fathers would have done at Saddleback Church. What would have happened to Thomas Jefferson if he had responded as he wrote in 1781:  “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”  Would the crowd at Saddleback have applauded and nodded through that one? Doubtful.

Kathleen Parker is syndicated by the Washington Post Writers Group. Her e-mail address is kparker@kparker.com. 

 By today’s new standard of pulpits in the public square, Jefferson — the great advocate for religious freedom in America — would have lost.

Let’s go after ‘the moral right’ together! [for the $ n' votes]

All this is telling me is that this particular Church has much $$      

  video: [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7566122.stm]        McCain

  video: [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7566101.stm]        Obama

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7566019.stm  reference

US rivals try to woo Christians

US presidential hopefuls John McCain and Barack Obama have been trying to woo Christian voters at a televised religious forum in California.

The two men shared a stage for the first time since securing nomination. Speaking first, Mr Obama defended his support for abortion and same-sex civil unions, but said marriage should only be between a man and a woman.  Republican John McCain affirmed he was pro-life and that he strongly supported preserving the status of marriage. The forum, hosted by US pastor Rick Warren, was the senators’ last joint appearance before their official nomination as the candidates for November’s presidential election at their respective party conventions in a few weeks.  Three debates are scheduled to take place after the Democrat and Republican conventions. 

Moral failure — Mr Warren is best known for building Saddleback Church into a 20,000-member “mega-church” in Lake Forest, southern California, and for writing The Purpose-Driven Life.

Senator John McCain answers his questions on faith . At the beginning of the first hour-long interview, Mr Obama told the pastor that America’s greatest moral failure was its insufficient help to the disadvantaged.  The Democratic candidate noted that the Bible had quoted Jesus as saying: “Whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me.”  He said the maxim should apply to victims of poverty, sexism and racism.  Mr Obama also reaffirmed his belief that marriage should only be a “union between a man and a woman”, although he also defended his support for same-sex civil unions and for the granting of similar rights to same-sex partners.  If he were president, he said he would not support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage because the issue was one for state governments to decide.  On abortion, Mr Obama stressed he remained pro-choice and that he believed in the “Roe vs Wade” Supreme Court ruling supporting it.  However, he did say that he would seek to reduce the number of late-term abortions and unwanted pregnancies. 

‘Pro-life president’ — Mr McCain was asked similar questions by Mr Warren. When asked about America’s greatest moral shortcoming, he responded by saying that its citizens had failed to “devote ourselves to causes greater than our self-interests”.

Barack Obama was questioned over religion .  Appearing to criticise President George W Bush, Mr McCain said that after 11 September 2001 there should have been a push to encourage people to join the army, Peace Corps and other voluntary organisations, rather than an official call to “go shopping”.  When asked about his stance on abortion, the Republican candidate declared he opposed abortion “from the moment of conception”.  “I will be a pro-life president and this presidency will have pro-life policies. That’s my commitment to you,” he said to applause.  Mr McCain also said he supported preserving “the unique status of marriage between a man and a woman” and that he was against the decision taken in some states to allow same-sex marriages.  “That doesn’t mean people can’t enter into legal agreements. That doesn’t mean that they don’t have the right of all citizens,” he said.  Conservative Christians form about one-quarter of the US electorate. They largely support the Republican Party, but have not shown great enthusiasm for Mr McCain.  He identifies himself as Baptist and has made a strong appeal to social conservatives and evangelical Christians during his campaign.  But he rarely discusses his faith. Earlier this year he said: “I’m unashamed and unembarrassed about my deep faith in God. But I do not obviously try to impose my views on others.”  Mr Obama, a Christian, has made a point of discussing his religion on the campaign trail and has been courting religious voters with a presence on Christian radio and blogs, and other events.