RSS
 

Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

About the open letters about Planned Parenthood funding.

21 Oct

I recently posted open letters to Kohl’s and Staples asking if they support Planned Parenthood. Kohl’s replied that they do not, and I’m still waiting to hear back from Staples.

What is my purpose in writing these letters and figuring out if these large companies where I spend money are financial-backers of abortion?

It’s an interesting struggle, figuring this out, and I’d love any thoughts you have to contribute to a discussion of this kind.

What’s the point of me writing to Kohl’s (who confirmed within 1 business day that they do not donate to Planned Parenthood)? If a clothing store supports Planned Parenthood, I may be able to buy the same clothes from another source. I can’t, however, go without pants altogether. That would be showing the world something, but it wouldn’t be showing them Jesus.

Am I responsible for what Kohl’s, Staples, or other companies do with their money? To answer this, I think about Jesus’ command that the people of Israel pay their taxes, and this money was used to oppress them as well as wage war against others. Jesus didn’t put the responsibility for Rome’s crimes on the people paying taxes. There is no indication that Jesus thought that by paying their taxes they were guilty of Rome’s crimes.The responsibility of the people was to be law-abiding citizens, and to live at peace with all people as far as it was up to them.

So what is our personal responsibility today? The direct application is that we should pay our taxes as required bylaw. A more general principle about money is that we are supposed to be good stewards. Unlike taxes, buying products is not required by law, it it discretionary. (Except for healthcare under the Obama-Pelosi-Reid plan.) That is, while we need clothes, we aren’t obligated by law to buy our clothes from a specific store. Every dollar spent is a vote in favor of who you’re giving the money to.

For a long time I avoided WalMart because of horrible customer service. I avoid Casa Bonita because the food is awful. I avoided The Sharper Image because it was expensive. I walk out of movies and get my money back if it’s overly obscene (Anchorman, Super Bad), a mockery of the very book it’s supposed to based on (The Runaway Jury) or a comedy that’s not funny at all (Napoleon Dynamite). These are all understandable, and I’m adding another category to this list: stores I’ll avoid because of what they do with their profits.

My goal isn’t to start a boycott to shut a place down or put people out of work. My goal is to take the personal responsibility that is given me in being a good steward of the money which God has put me in stewardship.

Do I bear personal responsibility for what someone else does once I give them my money? No. But I do bear responsibility for giving it to them in the first place. Why give my money to a place that supports crimes against humanity when there’s another option?

I’m willing to go to one store over another to save $5. But am I willing to spend the $5 extra if that less of the money that leaves my stewardship is then used for evil? Is $5 worth more than a human life? (Certainly of the $5, perhaps a few cents will be used as a donation to Planned Parenthood and pays for a tiny fraction of an abortion. But by going down this road, we’re making an argument that supporting a certain percent of evil is fine, or else you’ll end up calculating a price tag on a human life. I don’t think that following that logic will lead us to a good place. I think it’s safer to base the argument on good stewardship.)

Would you buy coffee from Al Qaida if it were cheaper than Starbucks? Hopefully you answer “No, because I’d be sponsoring evil just to save a few dollars on a latte.”  I’m proposing that this is the same reasoning we should be using whenever we spend the money under our stewardship.

An investor takes someone else’s money and invests in companies. Good investors will research what they’re investing in to make sure it’s worthwhile. They do their research before investing. And while the investor isn’t responsible for a CEOs decisions, they are constantly watching these companies and the people who lead them to make sure it’s still a good way to invest this money that others have put under their stewardship.

Why would we consider stewardship of God’s stuff less important than an investor’s stewardship other people’s investment funds?

I’m not arguing for making your own clothes from cotton grown in your backyard to avoid the chance of some of someone else being a bad steward. I’m not arguing that you bear personal responsibility for what Microsoft or Starbucks, Mardel’s or Chik-fil-a does with their profits. Perhaps in the future I will make those arguments as I explore these issues, but today I am simply arguing the following:

It is worth the time to learn about where you’re investing God’s money, and choose the options that contribute least to evil according to the information you are able to obtain.

 
10 Comments

Posted in Politics, Reason, Spirituality

 

Dan Maes and Tom Tancredo

30 Sep

Here in Colorado, our Governor’s race is a mess for conservatives.

A short history:

The three candidates for Colorado's Governor: John Hickenlooper, Dan Maes, Tom Tancredo.

The three candidates for Colorado's Governor: John Hickenlooper, Dan Maes, Tom Tancredo.

John Hickenlooper, Denver’s mayor, had no competition for the Democrat nomination. McIinnis and Maes were the top two Republicans, both had issues. Maes appeared to have credibility issues and McGinnis was being accused of plagiarism. Tom Tancredo pulled his endorsement of McGinnis before the Republican primary, and said that if McIinnis and Maes didn’t drop out, he would enter the race independently.
With Tom joining the attacks on McInnis, he lost the primary to Maes. Maes won on the benefit of not being accused of plagiarism.

Tom Tancredo switched political party affiliation and is now on the ballot as the Constitution Party candidate. The conservative vote has split. It seemed that in the year of the conservative, we were handing the Governor’s office to the most liberal candidate.

The policies of Tancredo and Maes would be very similar, focusing on a constitutional perspective validating the primacy of the individual, instead of the primacy of the government. While Hickenlooper would raise taxes, Tancredo and Maes are expected to maintain or cut taxes. Across the board, the principles and policies of the conservatives are similar.

What’s happened to date:

When Tancredo entered the race, he had only support of 9% of Colorado’s voters. Maes could conceivably compete with Hickenlooper, but only if Tancredo dropped out.
Tancredo has consistently gained support while Maes has lost support. During the month of September, Tancredo moved up to 34% support of Colorado voters, only 10 points behind Hickenlooper. Maes has dropped to only 15% support. Tancredo’s support has come from those who were formerly supporters of Maes, Hickenlooper, and undecided voters.

Arguments that used to be against Tancredo are now against Maes:

Arguments from local Maes supporters as well as national figures like Michael Medved have essentially been the following:

Politicians with the winning touch almost always shun fringe parties because chances of success are so small. The most admired American leaders take their place in an honorable pragmatic tradition, counting practical results as more important than showy gestures.

The basic idea is that running would only ever accrue him a few percent vote that would take away votes only from the Republican with an impractical bid that could never compete with the liberal Democrat. Tancredo staying in the race could only ever defeat Maes and ensure a Hickenlooper victory.

BUT today, Tancredo is within 10 points of Hickenlooper, and has more than double the support Maes has. These very arguments that used to be against Tancredo are now arguments against Maes.

It is Maes who can only muster a small percentage of support.
He has become the incredible shrinking candidate while Tancredo is building support at an extremely rapid pace.

It is Maes whose only effect now can be electing the Democrat by taking away support from the 2nd most popular candidate.
Tancredo needs about 10% of Coloradans to change to vote for him for the win. Maes would need about 30% of Coloradans to change their support for him to win.

It is Maes who is staying n when the chances of success are so small.
The trends show that Maes will continue to lose support and will enter election day with under 10% of votes from Coloradans.

What this means for you, me, and Maes.

I recognize that some people will vote for Maes because he’s got an R behind his name. If this is you, you are simply not a conservative, but a member of a political party, who will do what you’re told. These sorts of people are called RINOs, “Republican in Name Only,” who will vote for Republicans no matter what.

Others will vote for Maes because they’re mad at Tancredo for messing up the Republican primary. I don’t like what he did either. But we aren’t voting on what Tancredo did, we are voting for what direction the Colorado Governor’s office moves in.

Unless there’s a tremendous upset and Maes is neck-and-neck with Hickenlooper by voting day, any votes for Maes will have the effect of voting for Hickenlooper.

As a conservative, I want my vote to be effective for bringing about change in the right direction – constitutional values, individual rights, smaller government. Your vote for a candidate who cannot win is a vote against all of these conservative values.

Whatever your personal feelings, whatever your party affiliation, a vote for Dan Maes isn’t a vote against Hickenlooper or a vote against Tancredo. A vote for Dan Maes is a vote against conservative values in the governor’s office. The only way we have to pursue conservative values in the governor’s office this term is to value conservatism over Republicanism, over our annoyance with Tom messing up our primary, over our desire to hold a grudge.

The only way we have available to us to pursue conservative values in the office of the Colorado Governor this year is to vote Tancredo.

 
4 Comments

Posted in Politics

 

RNC Pledge To America

24 Sep
Republicans and the Pledge to America

Photo credit: SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

The Republicans have published a 21 page “Pledge to America“. I have only skimmed it so far, but some of the bullet points indicate a commitment to spurring economic growth by lowering taxes on the citizens and downsizing the government. This means that every business and every individual has more money, and the federal government spends less money.

Pelosi, Reid, and Obama are expected to announce the DNC response today: a 2,200 page document called “Hope for America” that no one has read, and we’ll find out what it contains after the Democrats are elected.

 
2 Comments

Posted in Politics

 

Dr. Roger Starner Jones Muses On Crisis Culture : Fact.

17 Sep

emergency room doctor roger starner jonesWhen my cousin, a medical professional, shared this on Facebook, I assumed it was just an email forward telling a fictional story. It’s not.

Dr. Roger Starner Jones is an ER Doctor who works at UMMC and is currently selling this condo, featuring a central vacuum. Real guy. What he wrote below was published August 29th, 2009 and is currently making rounds on Facebook in a slightly modified version addressed to the President.

If he is correct, then the health care overhaul just made worse the problem that has caused the mess we’re currently in with health care. What do you think?

Dear Sirs:

During my last night’s shift in the ER, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient with a shiny new gold tooth, multiple elaborate tattoos, a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and a new cellular telephone equipped with her favorite R&B; tune for a ring tone.

Glancing over the chart, one could not help noticing her payer status: Medicaid.

She smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and, somehow, still has money to buy beer. And our President expects me to pay for this woman’s health care?

Our nation’s health care crisis is not a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. It is a crisis of culture – a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on vices while refusing to take care of one’s self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance.

A culture that thinks I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me.

Life is really not that hard. Most of us reap what we sow.

Starner Jones, MD
Jackson, MS

As a side note, I’m not the only one trying to find the source of this letter. The news paper that published this doesn’t have it archived on their website, but people are looking. 5 of the top 10 searches today are trying to find this story:

Clarion Ledger searches

 
1 Comment

Posted in Culture, Politics

 

Nancy Pelosi, Wicked Witch of the West: Why Party Trumps Person in Politics

13 Sep

We’ve often voted just for the individual politician that we like or agree with the most in elections. It’s usually a Republican because there’s some core issues of the Democrat party that are immoral (such as oppressing the poor through entitlement programs that keep them poor and oppressed, abortion, devaluing individuals by lessening individual rights) and Libertarians tend to be unqualified and silly ( with bios that sound like “I’m a kindergarten volunteer, I like the color pink, and I want to be governor and legalize pot!”)

But – at least in the legislative branch, and in a year like 2010, party trumps politics. Here’s the most creative ad campaign I’ve seen in a very long time:

YouTube Preview Image

John Dennis is taking on Nancy Pelosi with this ad, and throughout his website. Americans aren’t too happy with Congress right now. With good reason. The parties switched control of the legislative branch in 2006, and everything went wrong. Unemployment increased, repeated bailouts and stimulus packages were written into law, anyone who dares disagree is slandered and maligned. The economy took a downturn when Pelosi took leadership of the legislative branch, and things continue to move the wrong direction now, 4 years later.

But John Dennis isn’t the only one taking on Pelosi. Every Republican congressman is. Pelosi is in control of every committee and the agenda of what comes to the floor for a vote and when – because the Democrat party has the majority. The same is true with Harry Reid in the Senate. If you vote for a moderate Democrat, it’s a vote for the extreme left-wing ideologues like Pelosi who will both control the legislative branch and ignore the moderate Democrat you vote for.

Isn’t the same true of Republicans? While the Democrats say they want to expand government and do so, the Republicans say they want a smaller government, but during Bush’s presidency, they grew government just like Democrats.

The difference is that Democrats screwed things up right away. The Republicans took a long time to ignore their own platform and increase government intrusion into your life. We need a new change – different from the Democrat ‘echo Obama’ strategy. We the voters need to get rid of the Democrat control of the legislature, and we then need to force the Republicans to stick to conservative principles, or vote them out in the primaries when they’re up for re-election.

A vote for any Democrat, moderate or not is a vote for the Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid control of every law written in Washington.

 
3 Comments

Posted in Politics

 

Religious Extremists, Part 2: Timothy McVeigh

09 Sep

Yesterday I began writing about religious extremism. The talking point popularized by Rosie O’Donnell on The View is that Christian extremists are just as dangerous to America as Muslim extremists. This doesn’t even pass the laugh test. Here’s how one filmmaker made this point, in An American Carol:

YouTube Preview Image

There’s a few arguments used to bolster these false statements.

Claim: Timothy McVeigh was a Christian extremist/terrorist.
Timothy McVeigh was violent, but not a religious extremistThe thought pattern is: McVeigh was the Oklahoma City bomber, he was a Christian, therefore  that’s the equivalent to the  terrorists that crashed planes into the world trade towers on September 11th, 2001.

However, McVeigh described himself as a theist and declared “science is my religion.” That sounds much more like our atheist or agnostic friends than our Christian ones. Further, McVeigh did not commit violence or murder in the name of Christianity. He did not declare before or after that he was killing people for the advance of Christianity.

The effects of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) are now fairly well known. If a soldier called for active duty overseas mentally snapped and started going on a shooting rampage, it would likely be blamed on PTSD, regardless of the religion of the person. If, however, they had been attempting to contact known violent leaders in a religion and shouted out before or during the violence that they were doing this for the advance of their religion, that’s a much better indicator that they’re killing in the name of their religion: Because they’re saying that they are.

That’s why the Fort Hood shooter was a religious terrorist, but McVeigh was not. McVeigh never even revealed what he actually believed, much less said that he was murdering because of that faith.

 
1 Comment

Posted in Politics, Spirituality

 

Religious Extremists, Part 1

08 Sep
YouTube Preview Image

Since Rosie O’Donnell declared that Christian extremists were as dangerous as Muslim extremists, it seems to have become an official talking-point of American politics. I’ve heard media talking heads say that Christianity and Islam are the same: not all Muslims are terrorists, not all Christians proselytize.

Naturally, telling someone there’s a free gift of eternal salvation available to all is strikingly similar to blowing up yourself along with a bus load of people, or two trade towers. Why didn’t we see that before? In perspective, we can all now see that every Billy Graham event was as damaging to America as 9/11. Yet the American military doesn’t seem to be able to track down one old man in the mountains of North Carolina. I smell conspiracy. How did we not realize this when Graham called his events the most politically incorrect word: “Crusades!” Oh, the horror of extreme Christians!

George W. Bush promoted the idea that Islam is a religion of peace. What about that sneaky worldwide trend of violent extremists rising up within Islam? We’re told that every religion has extremists, but it is no reflection on the religion or the people who follow it. But especially Christians.

Today a Christian extremist is in the news again.

A small US church says it will defy international condemnation and go ahead with plans to burn copies of the Koran on the 9/11 anniversary.

The top US commander in Afghanistan warned troops’ lives would be in danger if the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida went through with the plan.

Muslim countries, the US government and Nato have also hit out at the plan.

But organiser, Pastor Terry Jones said: “We must send a clear message to the radical element of Islam.”

The US government, NATO, even General Petraeus have spoken against this man. Petraeus warned that the action could cause violence “not just in Kabul, but everywhere in the world.”

The Huffington Post calls this “our own home-grown variety of dangerous extremism.”

The State Department calls him “un-American.”

I’m not arguing that this guy is correct – or that he’s incorrect – in what he’s doing. But I think it’s important that we get down to what is happening here. Like the conversations at Jim Taggart’s wedding reception, no one is willing to name what is going on here: Terrorism.

Muslims burn an effigy of Pastor Terry Jones who may burn a copy of the Koran

Crowds of Muslims in Afghanistan are chanting “Death to America,” and burned an effigy of the pastor – who as of yet, hasn’t done anything. The Obama administration has called on Americans to join these protests against this American pastor.

And yet, less than a year ago, there was a Bible burning that did not receive international or even presidential condemnation. What’s the difference? What’s the thought pattern in this case?

Everyone’s behavior should be modified out of fear of violence from a certain group of people.

Yet – isn’t that the very definition of terrorism? (Yes, it is: “the state of fear and submission produced by the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce.”)

Will this empower the enemies of America in Afghanistan? Perhaps. It already has, and nothing has happened.

Will this endanger American civilians in Muslim countries around the world? Possibly.

Is it foolish to tempt a bully that is threatening violence against you? Perhaps. And that’s why the bully stays the bully. That’s why the mob wins. That’s why terrorism works.

The government of the United States is one that will pay someone $15,000.00 to take and popularize photos of a crucifix in urine, that will ignore Bible burnings, yet speaks out against anyone who does not submit to at least some of the commands of Islam.

Regardless of Rosie’s talking point, anyone who argues that this guy is a dangerous Christian extremist is saying that only because of what Muslim extremists will do. Anyone who argues that he should stop because of potential violent Muslim reactions is saying there is a difference between Christian and Muslim extremists.

 
7 Comments

Posted in Culture, Media, Politics, Spirituality

 

Miss Bush Yet?

02 Sep

George W. Bush: Miss Me Yet?

For almost 10 years, the DNC and their cronies in the leftist mainstream media have been villainizing George W. Bush.s

No doubt this has influenced people’s political perceptions – I once had someone tell me they blamed Bush for trouble they had finding a parking space. This also likely helped give Obama the presidency as he and others cast his opponent, John McCain as a 3rd term of Bush.

That Obama and the democrat’s politics of personal destruction have a strong influence on how the citizens of America and the wold perceive American politics. It’s nothing new – every strong opponent of the Democrats since Ronald Regan has been attacked as stupid and incompetent. Think about it – what comes to mind as the attacks on Bush, Gingrich, Quayle, Palin?

Obama and the DNC recognize the effectiveness. Two years into his presidency, Obama continues to blame every problem on his Republican predecessor. However, the excuse seems to be getting worn out.

Ohio went for Obama in 2008. A survey by liberal polling agency PPP was just released shows that now, as Obama is less of a mystery and we all know more about him, 52% of Ohioans wish that Bush was still in office, verses 40% who prefer Obama.

While Bush can’t run again for presidency, the poll is relevant because Obama’s incessant finger-pointing at Bush in his ongoing blame game that he plays with the rest of his party that leads both houses and the majority of media outlets.

The personal attacks, name-calling, and finger-pointing works for the Democrats. If they weren’t doing this, the numbers would be dramatically more in favor of Republicans. As it is, Republicans have a 10 point lead on a generic ballot per Gallup, another polling agency that leans left.

Is this an indication that the finger-pointing and personal attacks have stopped working? That’s now how the democrats will see things. They’ll believe that they aren’t blaming and attacking people enough. Expect the name-calling and “politics of personal destruction,” as the Clintons used to say, to escalate as we approach November and future elections.

 
9 Comments

Posted in Politics

 

The Democrat’s Phony Diversity, Part 2

01 Sep
YouTube Preview Image

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Glenn Beck continues to be mocked by Democrats and their cronies in the media for the rally at the Lincoln Memorial where somewhere between 5 people and half-a-million people attended. He’s mocked because he made statements about reclaiming the civil rights movement. It’s as obvious as Obama’s Christian faith that Beck can’t say anything about civil rights, because he’s white.

This criticism flies in the face of Martin Luther King Jr’s I Have a Dream speech, given exactly 47 years before the rally. The Democrats continue to judge people based on the color of their skin, regardless of the content of their character.

In The Democrat’s Phony Diversity, Part 1, I wrote that:

The Democratic Party has been in the business of labeling and profiling people on the basis of a variety of demographics. They divide people by category and they have told everyone in every category that they must belong in the Democrat party or they are a Judas to their own kind….

You are welcome as long as you behave. Do what you are told to do. Believe what you are told to believe. Democrat politics trumps all religious belief. The party this takes over the place of your God. You lose the right to practice your own religion or to hold your own worldview.

There cannot be any real diversity because the worldview of the DNC conflicts with every religious system and traditional value system. The DNC must take priority over your faith, your worldview and your traditions. The only diversity allowed in the DNC is a facade without substance. It is as genuine as a fake city backdrop on a movie set. The appearance exists without substance.

News reports and blogs often fall prey to various logical fallacies, one of which is mere assertion: Just because I say this is true, that doesn’t make it fact. In this and subsequent posts in this series, I want to lay out a few examples of how this has been the case.

With the rally on the anniversary of MLK’s I Have a Dream speech, let’s start with the claim I’ve heard repeatedly that the Democrats voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act. Here’s a brief video that explains what actually happened:

YouTube Preview Image

(In case you don’t have video, the Republicans voted 80% in favor of the bill, the Democrats about 60%)

 
6 Comments

Posted in Politics

 

President Obama: Muslim or Apostate

24 Aug

I previously wrote about the White House’s explanation of Obama’s Christian faith: he prays, so he’s obviously a Christian. Most articles and tv reporters talking about this subject keep repeating that Obama is a Christian, to tell the rising number of Americans (as high as 25% in recent polls) who think Obama is a Muslim that they’re idiots.

Who decides who is a Christian? Who decides who is a Muslim? Both systems of belief have a recognized authority: for Christians the New Testament, for Muslims the Koran and the hadiths, other teachings supplemental to the Koran.

Christianity

Only 1 way:

Closed Bible The Bible says that no one is born a Christian. There’s interaction between a person and the supernatural, and the person enters into a relationship with the one triune deity, recognizes Jesus as the master (Lord) of their life. Romans 10:9-10 is the closest the New Testament has to a step-by-step process of salvation:

That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

There is no magic phrase to recite, but these verses speak of a verbal confession of what a person inwardly believes. Even the spoken element is only a confession of inward reality. If the inward reality isn’t there, the speaking isn’t a confession, but a lie.

Being a Christian is about an inward spiritual change that affects every aspect of your being. The Bible teaches that only God knows a person’s heart, it therefore follows that only God knows the spiritual state of everyone around the world. It is not possible for someone else to know whether you are truly a Christian through any sort of litmus test. There is evidence, however – outward transformation in a person’s lifestyle and actions that happens when your are inwardly changed. Does a person’s world view, beliefs, and positions on issues line up with Jesus’ teachings? While no one is perfect, a Christian should be conforming more to the person of Jesus as time goes by.

Islam

Closed Koran/QuranIn contrast, one can be a Muslim by conversion or by birth.

Option 1: Conversion

One may convert to Islam by saying the following phrase (the Shahadah) in Arabic: “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.” This is not a direct quote from the Koran, but is based on Koranic and extra-Koranic writings and has been the longstanding tradition in Islam.  A whole-hearted attitude or inner change is not required, though that’s desirable.

Option 2: Birth

Any children born to a Muslim are considered Muslim from birth. While Muslim men are free to marry non-Muslim women, Muslim women are forbidden to marry non-Muslim men. Thus, regardless of the mother’s religion, a Muslim household always has a Muslim man at it’s head, and the children are Muslim. If your father was a Muslim, you are a Muslim, according to Islam.

A Muslim child is not accountable before Allah for his/her actions until puberty. At that point they can continue to live as a Muslim or they can choose otherwise, and are considered an apostate, deserving execution.

Execution!? This is not some archaic story in the Koran that was situational. It is a very clear teaching. While it isn’t practiced by every Muslim, it happens around the world and Malaysia and Iran have recently been considering legislation to legally enforce this Koranic teaching.  The video below is about a teenage girl from a Muslim family in Ohio who fled for her life after her father threatened to kill his daughter.

YouTube Preview Image

Quirk: Lying in Islam

While the Koran forbids lying, there are lies that aren’t considered lies. One general rule of thumb I’ve heard many times is that it’s not considered lying to lie for the advance of Islam or for the heart of a woman (which as we know from above is a quick way to beget baby Muslims). Additionally, “Muslims can lie while under oath and can even falsely deny faith in Allah, as long as they maintain the profession of faith in their hearts. ” You can read this long article on the Muslim practie of Al Takeyya, the practice of lying for one’s self or for other Muslims. The article states that even befriending people of other beliefs and displaying adherence with their unbelief as a means of self-protection is ok, and for self-preservation or the preservation of other Muslims, a Muslim can:

  • Drink wine, abandon prayers, and skip fasting during Ramadan.
  • Renounce belief in Allah.
  • Kneel in homage to a deity other than Allah.
  • Utter insincere oaths.

So from a Muslim perspective, it’s possible to denounce Islam and remain a Muslim, though it seems relegated to being in a position where it would be detrimental to one’s self or to the cause of Islam to be openly Muslim.

President Barack Hussein Obama: Christian or Muslim?

Obama's Ramadan broadcast

Photo from the LA Times

As the previous post referenced, there has been a doubling of the percentage of Americans who believe Obama is a Muslim. The White House and the traditional press (newspapers, network, and cable news) have all risen to his defense to tell everyone about Obama’s faith. According to the White House, he’s a Christian. But according to the White House, the continuing recession is “Recovery Summer.”

But it doesn’t matter what the White House or your favorite media personality states. It matters what the authorities within Christianity and Islam state.

He can’t be both. If President Obama truly believes that Jesus Christ is Lord (God and master of all areas of his life) – the condition of being a Christian – then he cannot believe the Shahadah – the condition of being a Muslim. They are mutually exclusive.

As the New York Times accurately reported back in 2008, President Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as understood uniformly around the world. When he reached puberty, he became accountable for his actions as a Muslim. To apply the information gathered above, there are only 2 possible outcomes in Islam:

  1. Barack Obama is an apostate, worse than an infidel, and should be executed as an apostate by the followers of Islam.
  2. Barack Obama is a Muslim in good standing and engaged in Al Takeyya, pretending to be a Christian for the advance of Islam. This would only be possible if one could conceive of a reason that pretending to not be Muslim could be advantageous to the advance of Islam or his personal benefit as the President of the United States. Perhaps if you take a moment here to think: from the perspective of Islam, what could possibly be the benefit of having a Muslim in charge of the most powerful nation on earth, even if he had to pretend to be a Christian? If you can’t think of any possible answer, I’d like to thank you for visiting from MSNBC!

From a Christian perspective, the best that can be said about Obama is that he is likely a true Christian. Or you could argue likely not, as his positions on issues of importance don’t line up with Jesus’ teachings, and his views ought to be affected by his faith.

From a Muslim perspective, Obama is a Muslim or he needs to be executed.

Is Obama a Muslim? It depends on your perspective.

 
5 Comments

Posted in Politics

 
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »