Right-wing media just can't quit attacking Obama's faith
Following polls showing that an increasing number of Americans wrongly believe President Obama is a Muslim, right-wing media figures have used the opportunity to continue to sow doubts about Obama's religious convictions.
Right-wing media seize on opportunity to further attack Obama's religious beliefs
Limbaugh: "Obama says he's a Christian, but where's the evidence?" On his August 19 radio show, Rush Limbaugh used Pew's findings to repeat the claim that NASA administrator Charles Bolden's recent comments on Muslim outreach show Obama "turned NASA over to a Muslim outreach program." Limbaugh went on to say: "The guy holds an Easter egg roll -- the White House website promoting the Easter egg roll does not mention Jesus or Christ. It talks about environmentalism. Obama says he's a Christian, but where's the evidence?" Limbaugh also brought up Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church to cast doubt on Obama's Christian faith, saying: "Reverend Wright's church is a weird brand of Christianity. The Reverend Wright's church -- black theology is what comes out of that pulpit, which is not exactly mainstream Christianity."
Beck on Obama: "I think he is a Christian that Christians don't recognize." On his August 19 radio show, Glenn Beck addressed the findings of the Time poll, saying: "Here's the problem with this. I find that a disturbing poll, because I don't think -- I think that is the easy answer for people who are like, 'Well, it doesn't make sense. Nothing makes sense.' And I think the easy thing is to say, 'I think he's a Muslim.' I don't -- I really don't. I think he is a Christian that Christians don't recognize." Beck went on to claim that because "social justice activists" in the media have so distorted Christianity, "nobody is explaining why Barack Obama doesn't feel right." Beck also used the fact that Obama attended Wright's church to further confuse the issue, saying of Obama: "When he did get Jesus, he got it from Jeremiah Wright. This is liberation theology. ... So the story of Jesus takes on a whole different light."
Beck: Obama's comments show "contempt for the Scriptures." On his August 19 show, Beck and his co-hosts attacked Obama for comments he made about the Bible that they said show "a lack of understanding" and that are "not Christianity." Beck went on to claim that Obama's comments are "such a distortion" and "shows contempt for the Scriptures." Beck added that Obama's Christianity "is again liberation theology," and that his comments were "his understanding of distorted Christianity."
Hannity guest Brigitte Gabriel: "I cannot speak on what god he prays to in his private space," but "all the signs show that he has a very soft spot for the Islamic world." On the August 19 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity hosted Brigitte Gabriel to discuss the polls. Gabriel declared (via Nexis): "Finally people are paying attention to things after the fog has been lifted off of their eyes as to who did we really elect as president. The signs and the information were all out there. President Obama was born into the Islamic faith. Raised as a Muslim as a child. To a father who was a Muslim. ... He attended Islamic schools. I cannot speak on what god he prays to in his private space. I -- I'm not -- I cannot judge him for who he worships. But all the signs shows that he has a very soft spot... for the Islamic world." Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft linked to Gabriel's claims, and following a video clip of her remarks, wrote, "A growing number of Americans believe Obama is Muslim."
Ace of Spades: "Obama has made no effort to be seen publicly practicing his faith." In an August 19 Ace of Spades post, Drew M. wrote: "It's obviously dangerous to think you can know what's in another person's heart but I don't think Obama is any more of a Muslim than he is a Christian." He went on to question Obama's faith in general and concluded that "Obama's religion is the state." From his post:
It's obviously dangerous to think you can know what's in another person's heart but I don't think Obama is any more of a Muslim than he is a Christian.
You can't have spent all that time in Jeremiah Wright's church and really expect mainstream American Christians to say you share their values. Despite all his talk about wanting to find a local church to attend in DC, he never did. The fact is, Obama has made no effort to be seen publicly practicing his faith. Again, the measure of one's faith isn't their public professions of it (lot's of bad people sit in the front row of pews every Sunday around the world) but when you're President, what you say and do matter in the forming of the public's opinion of who they think you are.
Again, with the caveat it's impossible to know what is in the heart of another, I think Obama's religion is the state. He's a leftist. Religion is a tool to use in gaining and holding power but in the end it's not the guiding light of his life.
I think the reason he's seen as a Muslim is because of his family history and it's the kind of religion a leftist would be more in tune with in America
[...]
Add all that to his constant talk about the need to reach out to the Muslim world and his distortions about the importance of Islam in America to his lack of mainstream Christian background and, well, this is what you get.
RedState: "Obama believes in one thing: that he should get what he wants." An August 19 Red State post by contributor "streiff" discussed a Washington Post article on the Pew poll. Streiff said of Obama's religion:
I don't know what Obama's religion is and don't much care. Obama's quarter century in a front row seat in the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's house of hate isn't any more dispositive of his Christianity than Bubba attending Matt Hale's Church of the Creator but that doesn't make him a muslim. If you're predisposed to believe he is muslim, you will always fall back on the claim that he's practicing taqiyya. Personally, I think Obama believes in one thing: that he should get what he wants. He sat through Wright's racemongering Sabbath after Sabbath because it brought him influence. If he thought becoming a Buddhist would guarantee his election in 2012, we'd see him boarding Air Force One with a shaved head and wearing a saffron robe. He is his own monotheistic religion.
Confederate Yankee: "Yes, Obama Was a Muslim. ... I don't think he's a Muslim now, any more than he is a Christian." An August 20 Confederate Yankee post claimed that following the release of the polls, "Apologists everywhere were quick to lash out and claim he is a Christian, and some claim he was never a Muslim. That isn't true." Confederate Yankee went on to cite a 2007 Los Angeles Times article that reported that Obama regularly prayed at a mosque as a child. As Media Matters has noted, this claim was debunked by a Chicago Tribune investigation which reported: "Interviews with dozens of former classmates, teachers, neighbors and friends show that Obama was not a regular practicing Muslim when he was in Indonesia." Confederate Yankee concluded:
I don't think he is a Muslim now, any more than he is a Christian (the black liberation theology he exposed himself to at Trinity under Rev. Jeremiah Wright is hybrid of Marxist political beliefs and black nationalism cloaked in Christian trappings). If he were honest, Barack Obama would identify himself as non-religious.
But he lies when he claims he was never a Muslim.
Right-wing media have relentlessly driven Obama-Muslim falsehood
Right-wing media have relentlessly pushed the myth that Obama is a Muslim. In the past two years, the conservative media have continued to lie about Obama's personal history, dishonestly distorting his faith to claim that he is in fact a Muslim and not a Christian. Those untruths have run the gamut from outright claiming that Obama is a Muslim to alleging that he "is a Christian that Christians don't recognize"; from using his family and upbringing in Indonesia to portray him as an "Islamist" to claiming he has an agenda that shows he has a "preference of Islam over Christianity"; and from distorting comments Obama or his administration has made to picking out symbols associated with his administration to perpetuate the lie about his faith.
Second, this is simply a distraction. They know that they have NO answers, but they want control of the government again. Instead of elucidating the fact that they have no plans, no answers . . . . they are simply trying to smear the current government to the point that voters turn away from them. They know Obama's not a Muslim and don't really care if he was . . . it's about making people look the other way.
These people are very, very dangerous.
A politician's faith matters, I think, though. It is not a requirement, but it is indicative of positions he (or she) may take on any given issue and is reflective of his (or her)character. It is not dispositive, but it does give us insight into who they are as people.
It's up to each individual to determine what matters to them when voting for anyone, if faith is a determining factor for you, that is again, perfectly reasonable. As for a reflection on their character, I don't believe that. I have strong faith and beliefs and am a Christian, but I have friends who are atheists and agnostics and their character is just as damn good as a person of faith.
Also, I do not want a person's faith guiding their policy decision in government, it has no place. I want someone who is guided by doing the right thing, fairness and justice for all, without regard to their faith. I would hope you would want the same thing.
I do not think religious faith is conclusive as to their character. A lot of people who seem very religious are the biggest crooks, and a lot of those who are against religion have the best character. It is decidedly not conclusive. But I think as a general rule it is indicative.
I tend to think religious faith has some bearing on they govern. It cannot be the only factor, or we'd be in trouble. But I think it helps a person rule well, if they are true to the faith. Its a tough proposition, but I come down on this side of the question.
So I am just fine if I don't hear any politician mention it at all.
I want them to govern, not preach.
I honestly do no understand how there is still debate about prayer in schools or why there are those who seek approval by public display of faith as you outlined RO.
Isn't the main idea of Christianity to live as Christ lived? I don't see it being any more cut and dry than the verse above...
Here's the rub with my position-- people that flaunt their faith are not acting very Christian, either.
I don't think that has a place in public life.
I'm a conservative Christian, and I know how DANGEROUS it would be to both the government and to my religious rights to use religion as a guideline for my vote.
Thanks for verifying my suspicions that you are not a "rational conservative," just another groupie.
RC has done a pretty solid job of proving he's not rational either. Maybe there's some sort of contest between him and onementalgiant to see who can make their screen name seem the most unintentionally hilarious.
Its pointless to opine about Obama's faith because there is no evidence he is lying.
I also agree that the entire 4th estate, of which these fear-mongerers are NO part of, needs to take control of the situation and call these people out for their lies, etc., so that government can get on with their job - working for US.
I also want to clarify what I mean by working for us. In my opinion, we hire legislators and executives, and occasionally judges, based on what we know about them and how well we think they will do their job. We do not, no matter how much some might like to think we do, hire them to "do our will". We don't have the same access to information about potential legislation and its impact that they do - that, after all, is their job. While we might think that it is a good idea for elected officials to consider what is the popular opinion about something, I think personally that it is a very BAD idea for elected officials to pander to the popular. We are a republic, after all, or representative democracy if you want to put the democracy word in there, and we hire the political elite to do what they think is best - not what we think is best, we being most of the time very uneducated in what the law has to do with legislative matters.
On the other hand, I do appreciate what legislators are trying to do with transparency, trying to let us know at least what the text of legislation is with enough lead time that we can actually at least skim, if not read in depth, before it is voted on. Being a detail guy, and I think more educated in the law than the average lay person, I can appreciate the complexity. For most of the constituency, however, I think it is a waste of taxpayer money, even if it costs almost nothing to produce.
Some stated in the article that we cannot know his heart, and we cannot, but we can guess based on actions. We all know the saying that actions speak louder than words, and its no different with faith. This is not to say people won't make mistakes, but patterns of behavior emerge.
I tend to view him as one without much religious faith, myself. He has not shown that he is really into it. After spending so many years with Wright, one of the arguments he gave to distance himself was something akin to I didn't really pay attention to what he was saying. If he's not paying attention to his pastor, how much is he really into the faith? If he's not paying attention to this pastor but still have faith, why go that particular church?
Makes little sense to me, and is evidence that he really has little Christian faith.
Does it matter, though? I'd prefer to be led by one with religious faith, particularly Christian faith. But it is not necessary for him to lead.
A Christian acts charitably. A Christian stands up for his faith and does not hide it. A Christian, when he hears things that are aboninable to his faith said from the pulpit, like what Wright said, finds a new church, whether present or not. A Christian supports all life, and protects his home. A Christian does not distort Christ's message, which goes much beyond being peaceful and loving to your neighbor. A Christian upholds these standards in all levels of his life.
This is a big topic, and these comments admittedly are very conclusory and say little.
As you might imagine, I think Obama fails on several of these, which is why I question his faith. Do I know his faith? Nope, but I reserve the right to question, don't I?
My grandfather was a Lutheran minister, one of the most kind and devout men I have ever known. He died decades ago but if he were alive today and witnessed the shameful display of today's "Christians" polluting the airwaves with their sickening rhetoric, he would be appalled.
I agree with this, and see my post above. Flaunting one's Christian faith is never good. Though a Christian should not be humble or prideful, and thus a Christian leader should not flaunt it, it is still an important factor to me. It is not and will not be a definitive factor, but it is important.
I happen to think that it is very hard to consistently be a good Christian and be in the public so much, especially as Prez.
Fair enough.
My great uncle was a missionary in the Philippines and later the assistant dean of a very large university's school of theology. He would be appalled at the distortion of Christianity which has occurred in the past twenty years by the so-called "conservative movement."
It is deception pure and simple. Sadly, there are some similar groups, although not pushing theology, that exist on the left.
You got that right.
A CHRISTIAN DOES NOT JUDGE!!!!
YOU feel very comfortable telling people exactly what a "Christian" does, as if you have a direct link to God.
YOU have YOUR faith and YOUR beliefs, but YOU DO NOT have the right to JUDGE whether someone else is truly a "Christian", it's NOT YOUR PLACE!
You may want to be led by someone with Christian faith, that is perfectly reasonable. But to cast doubt on a person's faith because they don't somehow publicly display it in a way which "satisfies" you is absolutely unfair, and borders on nothing but baseless fear mongering.
I just don't get it.
It's a good thing. I don't expect it to last, but one can always hope! It'd be great to have another rational conservative on this site.
But I also suspect that Rational Conservative is RightON in disquise, and the back and forth here is a sham to convince us that they are two different posters with two different viewpoints. Pretty typical paid troll behavior.
by Rational Conservative (37 minutes ago)
by right ON (37 minutes ago)
Or they couldn't have help from another clone poster trying to further that deception?
As I said
"But I also suspect that Rational Conservative is RightON in disquise, and the back and forth here is a sham to convince us that they are two different posters with two different viewpoints. Pretty typical paid troll behavior.
Do you have proof or some strong evidence? Or are you just lying? Or are you trying to propagate a myth so you can diffuse their arguments because you don't like either of them (personal animus), or you can't offer an intelligent rebuttal?
We would like to see some proof beyond just your declaration, DellDolly.
That just isn't good enough.
You don't command that kind of respect.
When on previous occasions, they've exhibited very SIMILAR opinions? Like paid trolls can't do participate in pretense? You think that paid trolls can't use clones to attack themselves and others? Of course they can - that's exactly almost entirely what YOU do, Westla, as I have repeatedly documented.
RightON tried out the "Rational Conservative" nickname for a month or so in late February and early March. After I'd outed him a few times too many, and after he'd found that he gained no traction with the name, he stopped using it. Then last week, he made yet another effort to smear me, and it failed miserably, and so he decided to change his stripes, have RightON be more moderate in his views, and use Rational Conservative as his demon-seed persona.
How about this post from early March, saying that he and I had discussed this before when he and I had NEVER interacted on that subject before - ever!
Dolly, we've been through this before...
Here's an example where he outed himself as "pongowhistelton" while posting as Rational Conservative"! And guess who stepped in to protect both of them? Yeah, you guessed it - RightON.
Here's a post where he'd been posting for less than 2 weeks here, yet he tried to maintain that he had a good idea of my posting history, and felt he could claim that my posts were shallow (yeah, I know, only in inside-out, upside-down world are my posts 'shallow')
Or how about this argument, where he makes the same argument that RightON always does, that both sides are equally guilty?
Or the whole thread here - if that isn't a typical RightON misdirection and example of word-parsing, I don't know what is.
Here's another example of a typical thread by RightON, with 266 posts and 94 of them by Rational Conservative. RC got literally hundreds of thumbs down on that thread - and guess WHO defended him? Yeah, that's right - RightON defended him!
And here's one where both RightON and Rational Conservative were getting their butts handed to them, and guess what? They both defended each other. How unique!
And all these are just the first ones I found in a Google search. I could list about 25 more easily.
My office here at Casa Troll
For the record, I don't have any suspicions about you and Barn-- uh,I mean Rational Conservative sharing a social security number. You can play dumb when you want to, but AA, I mean RC, is the real deal.
Oh Lord. I don't know whether or not your a Christian, Dolly. But, you certainly must be a person of faith to bring that nonsense out. Give it up.
This is why he "attacks" you.
It's just scary to think she walks among us.
Not ONCE. You would NEVER be able to provide an example of me behaving that way - maybe that's why you didn't even TRY to back up your bogus assertion, or maybe you're just lazy that way, but you don't get to say that I am behaving badly without providing at least one example of it, yet you fail at even the most basic of tasks.
However, YOU, on the other hand, were dishonest about how you were going to provide evidence of untrue things that a poster had written. Bobby Jindal Fan HAD lied, and I provided links to actually document those lies. But you made additional accusations that could NOT be backed up, and you repeatedly refused to admit that!
As I exposed months ago,
You said, and I quote, "He also, in the quotes which I will produce, stated that his IQ was roughly the equivalent of Palin's." You also said "I'm not a liar. I'll have the quotes for you, BJ fan, just like DellDolly and others have produced quotes which you claim didn't exist. I was sick over the weekend [still not well] and am very busy today, but the quotes are there."
He never said what his IQ was, and he never said that it was similar to Palin's. And you never produced that quote, because he NEVER said it! However, you repeatedly, over and over, day after day, said that he DID say it, and that you would provide the quotes.
You also claimed he had said that he voted in another country, and he never said that either.
I TRIED to find the quotes you said existed when you failed to do so. They don't exist. That's how I documented the other lies - by finding them. But the two purported lies you suggested existed don't. Your photographic memory failed you.
But you never produced those quotes. And when I pointed that out, you personally attacked me. And you're apparently STILL teed off that I proved that you weren't being reasonable when you were accusing him of saying things he hadn't said (and again, I had nailed to the wall REPEATEDLY for other bits of dishonesty!).
YOU attack me because you don't like that I exposed your dishonesty, and he dislikes me because I've outed him as a paid troll who apparently has a couple of alter egos that sometimes post at simultaneous times.
In fact I saw Bintx, RO and RC with the pint of strawberries with my own eyes. Now grab your steel balls so you can calm down.
Get some help...
WHAT?
WHY is EVERYTHING about YOU?
Seriously, you complain about people going off topic and then you go off on some rant that has NOTHING to do with THIS topic and EVERYTHING to do with YOU!
And your credibility rant?
YOU can't possibly think this makes you creditable:
You think a paid troll trying to deceive others couldn't have two computers in the same room, one with a pre-written but not yet posted submission, so that both could be submitted at the same time?
Or they couldn't have help from another clone poster trying to further that deception?
Here's a clue, you look crazy and paranoid.
I am open to other manifestations of faith, but there are limits to it. If there are limits, no one can judge anything.
He may be lying, he may not be.
I have no problem, though, bringing into question ANY politician's faith. As I said, I think it is an important, but not decisive, factor. Since I think it is important, it is fair to bring it up.
You can disagree.
And make no mistake, this isn't about faith, this is about politics.
What's obvious about his Christianity?
Well, that he gets daily devotionals on his Blackberry, for one.
That he belonged to a Christian church.
That he's never been a member of an Islamic mosque.
That his children were baptized in a Christian church.
That he has asserted multiple times that he's a Christian.
All of that is great, but it proves nothing of his faith.
That's part of the point. Externalities do not necessarily prove someone's faith. Its a matter of the heart, but the heart leads to other actions. Some of his other actions bely his faith.
If you watch the Godfather, you'll get an idea as to what I mean-- Michael and his family did everything right under the Catholic faith, but he was still a monster.
Newt Gingrich could REALLY be a liberal at heart who simply found it more productive and profitable to be a Republican leader!
The most dedicated spouse and parent might have terrible fantasies and really ugly thoughts about his family that he successfully covers up! We don't KNOW.
ALL we can EVER go on is outside expressions of one's faith.
And the examples I gave above are quite GOOD examples of how we can be assured of his Christian faith! You said that his Christianity is in doubt. The ONLY way to say that is, once again, through EXTERNAL EXAMPLES of his actions! And there ARE no external examples of him being anything BUT a Christian.
Thank god the rest of us aren't like you.
1 - thou shalt rub out your enemies
2 - thou shalt murder your brother
3 - thou shalt murder your brother-n-law
4 - thou shalt bribe elected officials
5 - thou shalt lie, steal and cheat
6 - thou shalt perjure yourself in front of congressional committees
7 - thou shalt never take sides against your family (unless they join up with opposing families, in which case see commandments no. 2 and 3)
8 - thou shalt never rat out your friends (unless they become your enemy, in which case see commandment no. 1)
I'm sure I left a few out.
I'm a life-long, active, church-going conservative Christian, and I see more Christ-like qualities in Obama than our previous president.
Only to those of us that insist on behaving like children, RC. Not to the adults in this country it is not. Grow up.
When did Jesus Christ boil an egg and hide it for the next day?
The Easter egg hunt is the secular Easter, and it is only appropriate that the government acknowledge only the secular practice - not the Christian one...
----------------------------------
The Midnight Review
According to the LDS Church, the wearing of temple garments serves a number of purposes. First, the garment provides the wearer with "a constant reminder" of the covenants made in the temple.
Second, the garment "provides protection against temptation and evil".
Finally, wearing the garment is "an outward expression of an inward commitment" to follow Jesus Christ.
General authority Carlos E. Asay adds that the garment "strengthens the wearer to resist temptation, fend off evil influences, and stand firmly for the right."
The nature of the protection believed to be afforded by temple garments is ambiguous and varies between adherents.
Researchers who interviewed a sample of Latter-day Saints who wear the temple garment reported that virtually all wearers expressed a belief that wearing the garment provided:
"spiritual protection" and encouraged them to keep their covenants.
Some of those interviewed;
"asserted that the garment also provided physical protection, while others seemed less certain of any physical aspect to protection."
In Mormon folklore, tales are told of Latter-day Saints who credit their temple garments with helping them survive car wrecks, fires, and natural disasters.
Wikipedia
This has nothing to do with how strong or how weak Obama's devotion to any religion is. It doesn't matter what he does or says, the criticism will take hold in any event. To quote Bill Murray in Meatballs: "It just doesn't matter. IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER." The same people who are now saying Obama is a secret Muslim were critical of him for being devoted to the same church (yes, a Christian church) because of the head minister. (I guess if you want to keep your Muslim faith a secret, the best way is to go to church!) Besides, one of the most religious Christian presidents in recent history is Jimmy Carter, and we all know what the wingnuts think of him. Two who paid their religion lip service are Bush Sr. and Reagan. And that's the point: a president's faith doesn't matter. It's his actions. I believe Bush Jr. was sincere in his devotion, and many of his actions, in my mind, were far from Christian and disastrous for this country. (And trolls, don't give me any stuff about Reagan's devotion to his faith. It's right-wing revisionism. Giving fundamentalists a big place in your party is not the same thing.) This discussion is silly and just a reflection of how trumped up right-wing narratives have seeped into the mainstream. One last movie quote if I may. Regan, from the "Exorcist": "MOTHER MAKE IT STOP!".
My news sources are about a dozen papers and many blogs, both left and right. Basically I am curled in a ball, whimpering and sobbing for my country.