Is Obama The First Muslim President?
September 29th, 2009 at 6:33 pm by BrianAs I’ve said before, I don’t believe he is. Others may feel differently.
His fathers were and he was unarguably schooled in Muslim-only environments early on. His mother wasn’t.
Obama’s father, raised Muslim in Kenya, was, by the time he met Ann, “a confirmed atheist” who considered religion “mumbo jumbo,” writes Obama in “The Audacity of Hope.”
But by that same token, if you were raised in the U.S. chances are you could just easily say that you were raised in Christian-only environments and still not be a Christian.
For arguments sake, let’s say Obama is a Christian. Admittedly, he has said that it came to him much later in life thanks to the liberating theologies of one particular Reverend whose name is escaping me at the moment.
Goddamnit I hate it when that happens. I mean “goddamnit” in the sense of “aww, hell I can’t remember who it was” and not in the “not God bless America, Goddamn America” sense colloquially deployed by some in front of children at a church if given to rhetorical, anti-American flourishes.
To me, he is like many others – a Christian of Convenience. A chameleon who changes colors to blend in with the background of wherever he happened to be. You aren’t winning any Senate seats in a major metropolitan city running as a proud atheist. Or as he said:
Was it a conversion in the sense that he heard Jesus speaking to him in a moment after which nothing was the same? No. “It wasn’t an epiphany,” he says. “A bolt of lightning didn’t strike me and suddenly I said, ‘Aha!’ It was a more gradual process that traced back to those times that I had spent in New York wandering the streets or reading books, where I decided that the meaning I found in my life, the values that were most important to me, the sense of wonder that I had, the sense of tragedy that I had—all these things were captured in the Christian story.”
Sure, The Bible’s a good read. It’s got action. Drama. The triumph of the human spirit. In the greek tragedy sense, the hero suffers and the audience can enjoy watching his suffering because it allows them a form of escapism from their own problems. But you can find that in every bargain rental bin at Blockbuster. He did not have a “coming to Jesus” moment because he’s picking and choosing a cafeteria style faith.
I’ll have the eternal salvation, hold the limbo and extra beatitudes, por favor.
There’s a surefire way to determine if the non-churchgoing President is a Christian or not in one easy question if someone would dare to be so bold. As he has a White House press corps that is available to ask silly questions every day I’m not sure that would ever happen.
Simply ask, “Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and that he is the way, the light, and that there is no other way to heaven except through Him?”
Any Christian should be able to deftly answer that question. If you think the way to heaven can be achieved through Allah, Buddha, Stephen Colbert or the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s noodley appendages then you are not a Christian.
Now, as a politician, we can expect one to answer that question but put in a qualifier that they respect the beliefs of others and the Letter to the Danbury Baptists, separation of church and state, blah, blah, blah. But if you don’t believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to get to heaven then you are not a Christian. Or as Obama has also said:
“It is a precept of my Christian faith that my redemption comes through Christ, but I am also a big believer in the Golden Rule, which I think is an essential pillar not only of my faith but of my values and my ideals and my experience here on Earth. I’ve said this before, and I know this raises questions in the minds of some evangelicals. I do not believe that my mother, who never formally embraced Christianity as far as I know … I do not believe she went to hell.”
Well, good for you. That technically answers the question. Nobody ever wishes their mother went to hell. Grandmothers may go under the bus but mothers shouldn’t go to hell. Who doesn’t agree with that? If you don’t believe you go to hell. Them’s the rules.
Case closed. I’m glad we were able to have this discussion.
September 29th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Therein lies the way to discern a Statesman from a Politician. The Statesman will give the answer that they believe, and the Politician will give the answer that they believe that you want to hear.
The sad thing is that a whole lot of people who think they are Christian would be pleased to hear the POTUS’ answers noted above.
September 29th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Word.
September 30th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Funny thing, religion. Some think you can look at someone else and judge their eternal fate. Others think that it’s pretty much between each individual and their God, and that looking at someone else and believing that one can pass judgement on their eternal fate is an abomination. I suppose some in the former camp feel pride in being able to assess that they’re in and someone else is out, but I find it perplexing to imagine someone who accepts Jesus, but chooses to ignore much of the essence of what He said. I suppose some might think that paying lip service to that acceptance while hurling un-Christ-like condemnations upon others might might suggest spending more time thinking about what one’s original committment really means.
September 30th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Greetings:
And his difficulty in finding a new Christian church in his new hometown is due to….
September 30th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Whatever the difficulty is, the lack of finding one speaks loudly.
September 30th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
11B40, that question is ripe with just the sort of judging I was writing about. Thanks for the example. Generally, if someone tells me they are a Christian, I’ll take their word for it. I have yet to meet a perfect Christian. Have you? Ronald Reagan did not join a church while in Washington. Do you doubt his word that he was a Christian?
September 30th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
You’re right T-Funk. I don’t know either why Obama says he accepts Jesus and ignores much of what He said. I suppose it’s that lip service to acceptance while promoting Christ as a prequel to Marx and as a cudgel to beat his opposition by claiming WWJD for socialized healthcare, illegal alien amnesty, government funded abortions, government funded abortions for the Chinese, deference to dictators who murder Christians, etc., etc..
I suggest some people spend less time making assumptions about other one’s “original commitment” if they don’t have one.
September 30th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
There are many who attend church on a regular basis who may not be Christian, because attending church is not what does make one Christian. Becoming a “member” of a church is not even mentioned in the Bible.
Whether Reagan was a Christian or not, he did attend church on a regular basis, although even bringing that up does nothing more than obfuscate the original point of the post. Reagan has his legacy alredy; Obama is making his, and the two legacies would figure to be in stark contrast to one another.
Jesus’ teaching points Christians in the direction of helping others directly, making the Christian personally responsible to help those in need that are known to them. Jesus did not point his followers in the direction of helping the government take money from people. Indeed, if the Christian churches in the USA had been doing what they should in recent years in helping people instead of fostering what amounts to a country club mentality, then I submit the situation would be different now, especially in regard to health care.
At one time in history, it was Christian churches who built Charity Hospitals for those who could not afford health care, where the offering of no-charge care was the norm, which is in line with Jesus’ teaching.
October 1st, 2009 at 7:27 am
Ronald Reagan’s faith was also well known and he mentioned it candidly in many of his speeches.
Please don’t compare the person who brought down the Berlin Wall to the person who’s trying to rebuild it.
October 1st, 2009 at 9:39 am
Guy, you’re right on point. This is my gripe with the current so-called Christian conservative movement. Rather than putting barricades up around their church community, focusing on whether Obama’s religious credentials are to their liking, and opposing anything to do with gubmint and health care reform, why are they not offering an alternative that shows compassion for those who are wanting? If church-sponsored charity health care is a viable option and is more to their liking than government action on the issue, then why is this not being offered on a grand scale to meet the vast need out there? They don’t even have to wait for a concensus or a bill to pass Congress. They could just do it. Instead, they seem fixated on a sentiment of “I’ve got mine, the poor should just work harder, and anyone who disagrees is a Godless communist.” It’s a prideful, inward, siege mentality that just doesn’t make a lot of sense. Jesus constantly reached out to others. He didn’t attack them for thinking, acting, or being different than Him.
October 1st, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Medi Share. Yes, it’s for Christians by Christians, but why should there be a problem with that? Christians are feeding, educating, housing, and providing medical care to people all over the world. Some even risk their lives to do it. Some adopt drug addicted babies, or handi-capped children. What do they ask in return? For people to hear what they believe is the best news. That someone loves them even when they are in their darkest hour, that he will provide them with the father they never had, and a life after death.
I think it’s not being offered on a grand scale anymore is because people have come to rely upon the government to help those in need. And the government can not offer you a father. They pay you not to have one. Which invariably seems to create more need…and no hope. And now there’s a general cynical attitude towards Christian groups who advise healthy lifestyles. They’re ridiculed where they were once widely respected and condemned where they were once widely accepted.
Frankly Thelonius, I don’t know who you’re really talking about. There is a boogey man you have created that I’m not sure exists, but you need him in order to make your argument. I know black Christians, white Christians, gay Christians, Christians with drug problems, I could go on and then I could say the same about Conservatives. So who is this “different” person that Christians have an issue with?
October 1st, 2009 at 11:41 pm
T. Funk:
Yeah, that’s pretty much what I’m saying. The financial resources go to building large buildings and running lots of programs, what amounts to make-work in a sort of religious mode. The pastors are more concerned with how many attendees they have and they run their churches like a business. What gets left out is the simple teaching of The Word (especially the parts that call folks to real action or make them uncomfortable about parts of their lives that might need to change), and of course living it out in the world around them is not a consideration for most. Some areas where the Bible collides with our everday life in the USA: It is legal to murder one’s unborn children – hardly any word about it from a lot of churches; Sodomy is openly condoned and practiced in some “Christian” churches; People in need go without their basic needs out in the communities, and people in the churches in those communities wonder why those same people mock Christian principles and beliefs…that should be easy to understand, but first we have to look at ourselves and be honest and humble enough to see what needs to change. I’d rather do that humility and change part of my own volition, rather than having God, in His love for me, bring it into my life some other way, like maybe changing the government in my country in such a way that my freedom and chances for prosperity are taken from me.
Let me illustrate my point: We live pretty close to where William T. Sherman was born, and we toured his boyhood home a couple of months ago. It seems Sherman’s father died when young “Cump” was 9 years of age. He and several of his many siblings were taken in by various friends and relatives because his mother was not able to raise them all. The lady giving the tour said “that was the custom at the time”. I took my 11 year old son home and showed him James 1:27 and told him the reason that was “the custom at the time” was because folks took The Bible seriously, instead of playing church so they could feel good about themselves.
I’ve got a post on my blog from back in July when we visited George Washington’s home church in Alexandria, Virginia. (http://guyaverage.blogspot.com/2009/09/christ-church-in-alexandria-virginia.html) It’s a pretty humble church, and it’s not stretch at all to see where Washington put Faith and Humility in his life; it is well documented, actually. Dude, Washington had the opportunity to be either King of the USA or POTUS for life. We know the direction GW went with that choice, and that he chose to have a limited term as POTUS. I would not be sure at all what choice our current POTUS would make if given that same option.
Another thing that folks took more seriously then was The Constitution. It is clear to me that the Founders set things up so the God-Given authority that The Bible speaks of is in the hands of the citizens and they delegate representatives to exercise that authority for them; The People do not cede their authority to those representatives in The Constitution; the parts of The Bible that command obedience to authority actually apply to the elected representatives under the US Constitution! What is going on today in DC is as far from The Constitution as what is going on in the churches is from The Bible.
It is sad to see it, both in our churches and in DC.
I apologize for the length of the post. This is a condensation of my thoughts, believe it or not.
October 2nd, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Brian, Ronald Reagan did indeed frequently mention and invoke God in his speeches, but as with most other aspects of his private and personal life, he was in fact not someone who went on about his faith in any detail. He was a very private man and was in fact very well known to be very hard to really know on a personal level. Sorry if comparisons make you uncomfortable, but they are there and I will point them out.
Michele, there is no imaginary boogeyman. There is a component of the conservative movement that wears its Christianity on its shirt sleeve as a matter of pride, and is very focused on being derisive of anyone who isn’t in the club (as defined by themselves) with them. These are very much the people that Guy Average is referring to. These are people who are very self assured that millions of Christians who are not part of their particular denomination are not actually Christians at all. These are people who often complain that government does too much but then offer very little privately to help others in need. I’m not making this up.
I will say, however, that there are also a blue million other Christian individuals and organizations that I know and am involved with that are not that way at all. These are people who are both conservative and liberal, politically, but who are universally kind, generous and humble. My beef is not with Christians. It is with certain Christians who seem to feel that as long as they say the oath and pass the test, then endeavoring to be more Christ-like is optional.