However, George Neumeyer at the American Spectator, provides some background that may help to put these surprising results in perspective in an interesting piece entitled "A Relativist, Wrapped in a Muslim, Inside an Agnostic."
Why does a significant chunk of the American electorate think Obama is a Muslim? Let's count some of the reasons: he speaks of his "Muslim roots," says he hails from "generations of Muslims," was born to a line of Muslim males and given by them an Arabic name, went to a Muslim school in Islamic Indonesia, speaks glowingly of Islam whenever he gets the chance, holds a Ramadan dinner in the White House, tells his NASA head to turn the space agency into a Muslim outreach program, and last but not least insults doctrinal Christians routinely.
The voice of the people is the voice of God, the pander bears and demagogues of the left usually say. But not on this one. With great impatience they have appeared on cable shows this week to lecture the American people on Obama's "real" religion. Has the left-wing chattering class ever been more eager to pronounce a president Christian?
The American public hasn't seen this level of hyperactive defensiveness from them, or what they would call a "teachable moment," since that terribly insensitive New Yorker cover depicting Obama in a turban. Or was it the time that Hillary Clinton slyly said that Obama isn't a Muslim "as far as" she knew? Or was it the time the Hillary campaign allegedly sent to the Drudge Report an image of Obama in Muslim garb? Or when Hillary-consultant Mark Penn's offensive memos leaked out saying that he couldn't "imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values"?
So what is Obama?
So what religion is Obama? Probably the most generous description of Obama's elusive religious identity, should one take him at "his word" as it appears in his slippery memoirs and speeches, is that he's neither Muslim nor Christian; he's something else. His late mother, whom he once called a "Christian from Kansas" but actually was a non-believing anthropologist from Kansas, would have found classifying him tricky too. But perhaps he can be clinically described as a practicing agnostic, with deep roots in and sympathy for Islam, who views his now-professed, politically necessary religion with barely concealed disdain while allowing himself from time to time bursts of syncretistic sophistry and quasi-religious uplift.
- snip -
His de facto culture war with Christianity is of more interest to him than the real and ongoing one with radical Islam. He is the Harvard agnostic and dilettante who stands above all religions, save Islam, and judges their "rationality" and usefulness to the utopia to come. Islam is an intrinsically peaceful religion by his lights, while Christianity, unless it assumes the platform of the Democratic Party and sees Jesus as a forerunner to Saul Alinsky, is dangerously bigoted and an impediment to "progress."
- snip -
The more irrational a religion, the more Obama-style "rationalists" and relativists like it, and if the religion is non-western their enthusiasm grows still more. Obama's gushing about Islam stems not only from his "roots" but also from the western agnosticism to which he essentially converted: relativists quietly admire the rupture in the relationship between religion and reason in Islamic culture because they engineered a similar rupture in their own.
Radical Islam and relativism take different routes of irrationality -- the former adopts "faith" without reason while the latter adopts "reason" without faith -- but come out on the same trail of blood: a culture of death, with daily abortions in the west, suicide bombings in the east, and a "leader of the free world," who reads secularist propaganda at the Huffington Post with memory's ear cocked to the "call of the azaan," blind to both.This is brilliant. Everybody who has been observing the unholy alliance between radical Islam and the Western Left in Europe for the past 40 years and lately in America as well has been asking what is the common factor in the two seemingly disparate phenomena. Neumeyer has nailed it; it is irrationality.
Pope Benedict XVI pointed out that Islam needs to engage with reason and was answered by violence and shouting. Suicide bombings and abortion are both inherently unreasonable and self-destructive for the cultures which practice them.
Seldom has a leader embodied the Leftist-Muslim link in his own person quite like Obama. It's no wonder people have a hard time believing he is a Christian.
9 comments:
Craig, I take issue with your use of the Spectator article as validation that President Obama is misrepresenting his religious faith. Your article and quotes from the Spectator mix right-wing politics, American jingoism, and irrational conclusions to come up with this very specious argument that is not brilliant, nor well-thought out.
If you had read President Obama's books, listened with some deference to his own account of his coming to faith, and given him the same benefit of the doubt you seem very willing to give to Pope Benedict's ill-conceived attempt to challenge Islam by turning its own scripture against it, then you might simply say what the other 82% of Americans say -- "We take President Obama's statement that he is a Christian at face value."
By the way, 18% of the populace of the US is the same percentage estimated to be members of the extremely right-wing Tea Party movement. I wonder if there is a coincidence? As a theologian, I challenge you to do better than this in the future. Thanks for allowing me the space to comment.
-Chuck Warnock
Chuck,
Actually, I did read "The Audacity of Hope" and I didn't find anything there to make me think he is anything but the most liberal type of Protestant - committed to religious pluralism and verging on unitarianism. He did not highlight the black liberation theology of his church and pastor Jeremiah Wright because calling attention to one's Marxist roots is a poor way to win election campaigns in America and the book was practically a campaign tract (not that there is anything wrong with that as long as we recognize it for what it is).
Of course, we have to accept his self-definition as a Christian as far as that goes while recognizing, of course, that John Spong, Katherine Jeffort Schori and James Cone all self-identify as Christians too. But it should come a no surprise to anyone that to anyone that an Evangelical theologian has pretty serious reservations about taking liberal Protestants' and liberation theologians' brand of Christianity very seriously as Christian orthodoxy. I mean, really, I don't see where "American jingoism" even comes into it. (BTW - I also have trouble with people claiming to be Christians who don't go to church - I know that is old fashioned but it is important in the NT and he is the father of two young girls.)
And as far as trying to dismiss me with labels like "far right" I don't scare that easily because I think that anyone who would think of calling me "far right" must be "far left" himself. But thanks for taking the time to write. I appreciate all feedback.
(Oh, and I just noticed - you are incorrect to state that 82% of Americans take President Obama's statement that he is a Christian at face value. As the study showed, 48% don't feel comfortable saying they really know what his religion is and I think Obama himself is largely to blame for this situation. After all, people started out giving him the benefit of the doubt and are gradually losing confidence as they continue to observe his words and actions.)
Craig, I wasn't attempting to scare you, nor did I call you "far right." However, I did use American jingoism, and I think it does apply here considering the attempt to demonize Obama in the following paragraph:
"Why does a significant chunk of the American electorate think Obama is a Muslim? Let's count some of the reasons: he speaks of his "Muslim roots," says he hails from "generations of Muslims," was born to a line of Muslim males and given by them an Arabic name, went to a Muslim school in Islamic Indonesia, speaks glowingly of Islam whenever he gets the chance, holds a Ramadan dinner in the White House, tells his NASA head to turn the space agency into a Muslim outreach program, and last but not least insults doctrinal Christians routinely."
Here is the spectre of the demonic Other raised by 21st century American conservatism. "He speaks of his Muslim roots" -- of course Obama does because that is is background. I could go on, but I doubt if the arguments would prove fruitful here. My point is that this type of religion-baiting prejudice is hate speech in its most devious form -- masquerading as crusader for truth.
But, you may be correct that I misstated that 82% take Obama's faith statements at face value. But the divide is still pretty clearly the divide of the US along political party lines, which proves very little about Obama's faith, but lots about the power of politics in the US, even in matters of faith.
I doubt that anyone would consider me "far left" but like you I don't scare that easily either. What strikes me is the irrationality of this piece itself, as it attempts to paint Obama as irrational, and seeks to link him with suicide bombers of Islamic extremism. That is extreme in itself, and I find it difficult to believe that logically you could make that connection, even if viscerally you despise the man, which obviously you do. Again, my challenge to you is to be reasonable in your engagement on this issue. This article was not reasonable or even civil in tone, and that's what I take issue with.
I also know lots of evangelicals, myself included, who believe that others might not share every jot and tittle of the faith we do, but who nevertheless are within the bounds of orthodox Christianity.
As for those who claim to be Christian, but don't go to church (perhaps for good reason), I don't know what to say to that. There were no heads of state who were participants of local NT congregations, so we are at a loss for Biblical guidance on that one. Except that Paul does say that our first prayers in the assembly of the church should be for "kings and for all in authority." That is mine, and I hope yours as well.
Chuck,
You write:
"Here is the spectre of the demonic Other raised by 21st century American conservatism. "He speaks of his Muslim roots" -- of course Obama does because that is is background. I could go on, but I doubt if the arguments would prove fruitful here. My point is that this type of religion-baiting prejudice is hate speech in its most devious form -- masquerading as crusader for truth."
You are trying to shut down a perfectly reasonable discussion of Obama and religion by using wild-eyed phrases like "hate speech" and "religion-baiting." Just throwing around such loaded terms instead of calmly discussing facts does not suffice.
Obama is clearly anti-Christian in many ways starting with his extreme and relentless pro-abortion position which extends even to the barbarism of partial birth abortion (a procedure that is basically infanticide.) Obama has tried to divide American Catholics by separating the people from their bishops by using pseudo-catholic front groups. His cabinet and party is full of hypocritical Catholics who defy the Pope and the Bible. Obama has favored, protected and bowed before Islam in countless ways from the speech in Cairo to the bow before the King of Saudi Arabia and done everything possible to disassociate Islam from terrorism even when terrorists say plainly they are acting in the name of Allah. Using groups like Sojourners, Obama's campaign worked hard to portray him as a sincere Christian concerned for social justice in an attempt to peel off a few percentage points of younger Evangelical voters that could prove crucial in a close election.
Obama is neck deep in religious controversy by his own choice and so trying to deflect criticism from him by speaking as if it were illegitimate to bring up his religious views for critical examination is just not fair or reasonable.
I'm certainly not trying to shut down our conversation, but I do think the Spectator article was over the top in its faulty logic -- Obama has a Muslim name, therefore he is Muslim (I know, not stated but implied).
So, we disagree on several points: 1) how to characterize Obama's faith. I see it as well within the mainstream of Christian thought and practice, you see him as "anti-Christian." 2) how to discuss it, and these comments speak for themselves and do not need a rehash.
I would not characterize Obama's engagement with a variety of groups ("pseudo-Catholic front groups" and Sojourners for example) as sinister or conspiratorial. But to each his own. You're a good debate partner, and I'll leave you with the last substantive word, if you wish, as this is your blog.
Obama tolerates infanticide. That is obviously not Christian in any meaningful sense of the word. I would be willing to draw the line at that point: those who obstinately advocate abortion and infanticide are not true Christians. Obviously, Obama is pretending to be something he is not, and that could be why there is apparently no fatwa against him, as it is illegal according to Islamic law for a Muslim to apostatize. Even other Muslims probably think his "Christian faith" is a ruse, a perfectly acceptable practice apparently, to deceive infidels.
Chuck,
I just want to make one final point. I did not say that I think Obama is a Muslim: that was never at issue for me. What puzzles me is the question of why liberal Western elites (both secular and religious), who are epitomized in Obama as a public figure, choose to defend Islam so vigorously. I think that is a phenomenon that cries out for explanation and discussion. The title of my post played off the survey, which was the hook for the post and a way into the deeper question of the relationship between leftism and Islam.
Chuck, for what it's worth, I find the article and Craig’s post very insightful into who President Obama truly is--a calculating liberal politician who simply uses religion for political gains. "A Relativist, Wrapped in a Muslim, Inside an Agnostic” could not be more descriptive. I find it interesting that you accuse the article of mixing politics with religion, when that is precisely what this president does. At the very least, he is far from being an orthodox, traditional (or whatever adjective you want to use) Christian as Craig and others have pointed out.
Post a Comment