Changes

Previously I wrote the following: Here is a well written and scholarly piece that examines Obama's religious views and it was written by the National Clergy Council:  http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm  The evidence does not support Obama being a muslim.  The evidence also does not support Obama embracing biblical Christianity.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:19, 10 November 2008 (EST)  Mr. Schlafly wrote the following: " I skimmed it and don't see where it concludes that Obama is not a Muslim.  The article fails to recognize that less than 1% of people raised Muslim (as Obama was) ever leave the religion.  The article says Obama is a member of a Christian church, but he left that many months ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)"  

Previously I wrote the following: Here is a well written and scholarly piece that examines Obama's religious views and it was written by the National Clergy Council:  http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm  The evidence does not support Obama being a muslim.  The evidence also does not support Obama embracing biblical Christianity.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:19, 10 November 2008 (EST)  Mr. Schlafly wrote the following: " I skimmed it and don't see where it concludes that Obama is not a Muslim.  The article fails to recognize that less than 1% of people raised Muslim (as Obama was) ever leave the religion.  The article says Obama is a member of a Christian church, but he left that many months ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)"  

I am not a fan of "Liberal Christianity" as I do not believe it often falls into the realm of biblical/orthodox Christianity and when it does so it is not Christianity at all. With that being said, the article does give compelling evidence that Obama is a member of the camp of "liberal Christianity" and not biblical Christianity.  If Obama is a "liberal Christian" he is not a muslim.  There are two logical fallacies called the [http://www.pnl-nlp.org/download/propaganda/page2.htm#sloth slothful inductive fallacy] and [http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm fallacy of exclusion] whereby "Relevant evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence"."[http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm]  '''Andy, I believe you are committing these two logical fallacies.'''

I am not a fan of "Liberal Christianity" as I believe it often fails to fall into the realm of biblical/orthodox Christianity and when it does so it is not Christianity at all. With that being said, the article does give compelling evidence that Obama is a member of the camp of "liberal Christianity" and not biblical Christianity.  If Obama is a "liberal Christian" he is not a muslim.  There are two logical fallacies called the [http://www.pnl-nlp.org/download/propaganda/page2.htm#sloth slothful inductive fallacy] and [http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm fallacy of exclusion] whereby "Relevant evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence"."[http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm]  '''Andy, I believe you are committing these two logical fallacies.'''

'''Next, was Obama truly raised a muslim and therefore does the less than 1% of people raised Muslim ever leave the religion statistic apply.  I don't think a compelling case can be made for the 1% argument being applied to Obama.  I cite the following:

'''Next, was Obama truly raised a muslim and therefore does the less than 1% of people raised Muslim ever leave the religion statistic apply.  I don't think a compelling case can be made for the 1% argument being applied to Obama.  I cite the following: