Saturday, June 27, 2009

President Obama 'does God' liberally

Cranmer is a little pressed for time today, and so he will leave his readers and communicants with this interesting snippet about President Obama.

It appears that the President 'does God' rather more than George W Bush ever did, but, being a Democrat, he is not subject to the scorn and derision of the media for doing so:

He’s done it while talking about abortion and the Middle East, even the economy. The references serve at once as an affirmation of his faith and a rebuke against a rumor that persists for some to this day.

As president, Barack Obama has mentioned Jesus Christ in a number of high-profile public speeches — something his predecessor George W. Bush rarely did in such settings, even though Bush’s Christian faith was at the core of his political identity.

In his speech Thursday in Cairo, Obama told the crowd that he is a Christian and mentioned the Islamic story of Isra, in which Moses, Jesus and Mohammed joined in prayer.

At the University of Notre Dame on May 17, Obama talked about the good works he’d seen done by Christian community groups in Chicago. “I found myself drawn — not just to work with the church but to be in the church,” Obama said. “It was through this service that I was brought to Christ.”

And a month before that, Obama mentioned Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount at Georgetown University to make the case for his economic policies. Obama retold the story of two men, one who built his house on a pile of sand and the other who built his on a rock: “We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand,” Obama said. “We must build our house upon a rock.”

More than four months into the Obama presidency, a picture is emerging of a chief executive who is comfortable with public displays of his religion — although he has also paid tribute to other faiths and those he called “nonbelievers” during his inaugural address.

Obama’s invocation of the Christian Messiah is more overt than Americans heard in the public rhetoric of Bush in his time in the White House — even though Bush’s victories were powered in part by evangelical voters.

“I don’t recall a single example of Bush as president ever saying, ‘Jesus’ or ‘Christ,’” said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Christian group Family Research Council. “This is different.”

To Perkins, Obama’s overtly Christian rhetoric is a welcome development from an administration that he largely disagrees with on the issues, though Perkins sees a political motive behind it, as well.

Why is it that when politicians of the Right 'do God', they are 'religious nutters', hypocritical or 'extreme', but when those of the Left talk about their faith, they are considered enlightened, sincere and devout?


Anonymous Conrad said...

...Because if you espouse social conversatism, 'doing God' has wholly separate connotations, obviously. Not that every right-winger falls into that category - but then again, I never heard anyone too worried in Canada that the likes of Brian Mulroney or Joe Clarke (conservatives who governed secularly, and lacked a remotely evangelical support base) referenced Christianity overtly.

Case closed.

27 June 2009 at 09:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace,

True Christians acknowledge Christ as the 'master' and endeavour to following his teachings.

Conversely, Campbell was quoted as stating "we don't do God" - his 'master' being Nulabor.

27 June 2009 at 09:35  
Anonymous Fred said...

Please forgive the cynicism, but Barack Hussein Obama is "doing" his "Christianity" because he has been slated hard enough and often enough for being a closet Muslim. Many Muslims are waiting expectantly for him to "come out". And the US population know it. Equally, the Chosen One knows that he cannot come out as a Muslim yet.

But given that his "Christian" pastor was ex Nation of Islam, I do not think that BHO's Christianity is all that biblical.

27 June 2009 at 09:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Any commentator speaking on behalf of the entire 'US population' cannot be taken seriously.

27 June 2009 at 09:52  
Blogger Theo said...

He's obviously taking his taqqiya seriously.

27 June 2009 at 10:21  
Anonymous not a mouse said...

"but when those of the Left talk about their faith, they are considered enlightened, sincere and devout?" ... Even if their names are Bliar or Bruin, Your Grace?

Certainly, I think the you might refresh us with a new slant from the Canadian context, Conrad! If you haven't spent much time in England, recently, you may not have experienced the severity of anti-Christianity wrought by the socialists - the mediators for the euSSR -for whom Islam is the flavour of preference. Otherwise, Catholicism wins some approval; but the CoE? - Sad days.

I'm not sure about the US, either. I've seen much evidence of the Marxist influence in the universities; and it affects and brainwashes the young. Perhaps, there, Christians are constrained to walk the Marxist way, and downplay their own belief. But the Christian element in community life is often strong, and I think awareness of the drift to Antichrist is growing!

So we'll see... I'm glad Obama seems to be with us; I hope it is so.

27 June 2009 at 10:24  
Anonymous len said...

Any 'Christian' who quotes from the Koran ( which denies the Divinity of Christ) is quite frankly a 'christian' in name only.

27 June 2009 at 10:35  
Blogger McKenzie said...

It's a difficult one this. if you see your self as a Christian, and you have taken a leap of faith, then I would have thought that your faith would guide you in all things.

For everything there is a season,
and a time for every matter under heaven:

a time to be born,
and a time to die;
a time to plant,
and a time to pluck up what is planted;
a time to kill,
and a time to heal;
a time to break down,
and a time to build up;
a time to weep,
and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn,
and a time to dance;
a time to throw away stones,
and a time to gather stones together;
a time to embrace,
and a time to refrain from embracing;
a time to seek,
and a time to lose;
a time to keep,
and a time to throw away;
a time to tear,
and a time to sew;
a time to keep silence,
and a time to speak;
a time to love,
and a time to hate;
a time for war,
and a time for peace.
[Ecclesiastes 3:1-18; NRSV]

And maybe, a time to be liberal and a time to be conservative, a time to be both and a time to be niether.

27 June 2009 at 11:11  
Blogger Neuroskeptic said...

"Why is it that when politicians of the Right 'do God', they are 'religious nutters', hypocritical or 'extreme', but when those of the Left talk about their faith, they are considered enlightened, sincere and devout?"

For the same reason that if Obama promoted a typical liberal issue (i.e. his recent LBGT Month) he'd get no special praise wherwas if Bush had done that it would have got a lot of attention. (American) conservatives are meant to "do God", liberals aren't.

Not everything is a liberal plot you know...

P.S Also, Blair wasn't praised for this faith, in fact most left-wingers saw it as an embarrasment at best, evidence that he wasn't really "one of us" at worst.

27 June 2009 at 11:25  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Perhaps Obama makes frequent mention of his current faith in order to counteract the evidence about his original faith.

27 June 2009 at 11:27  
Anonymous eeyore said...

Len, your observation about the distinction between a Christian and a non-Christian is most interesting. You appear to hold that one who denies the divinity of Christ is not a Christian, but is this so? I sometimes wonder what a learned archbishop (pax tecum, Your Grace) would reply were he asked, "What is the irreducible minimum that one MUST accept or believe to call oneself a Christian?" I suspect that minimum to be very small indeed, and that the divinity of Christ is not part of it. But, never having had an archbishop to hand, I just don't know. Any thoughts?

27 June 2009 at 11:48  
Anonymous chris r said...

Perhaps Obama should be reminded of this:

"Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets." Luke 6:26

27 June 2009 at 11:56  
Anonymous len said...

Jesus Christ said"I assure you, unless you are born again, you can never see the Kingdom of God"( John 3:3)
It is impossible to understand who Jesus is unless you are born again.
The Bible says" People who aren`t Christians can`t understand these truths from Gods Spirit.It all sounds foolish to them because only those who have the Spirit can understand what the Spirit means"( 1Corinthians 2:14) That`s why Jesus said" You must be born again". Being born again simply means a real, living relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.
So the minimum requirement for a true Christian is to be born again.
Mere intellectual assent to the tenets of Christianity doesn`t make one a christian.

27 June 2009 at 12:33  
Blogger McKenzie said...

I once sent an email to Nick Griffin asking about his religious beliefs and faith. He replied in person saying he was a heritage Christian. Everyone has to start somewhere, and I think this could be a good line to start the journey from. The actual word 'Christian' can be adopted by anyone; it is not a biblical term. There has become an 'accepted' meaning for the word, but it is hotly contested amongst the various schools of thought about what, if any, qualifications are needed to fit the label. The same crises surrounds the word 'human'.

27 June 2009 at 12:50  
Blogger McKenzie said...

Having said that without applying the usual care, I had better add this quickly:

Acts 11:26, "and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And it came about that for an entire year they met with the church, and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch."
Acts 26:28, "And Agrippa replied to Paul, "In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian."
1 Peter 4:16, "but if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not feel ashamed, but in that name let him glorify God."
The New Testament manuscripts were written in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic originally not English as English did not exists at this point. The Greek word for Christian found in these passages is: Christiano meaning a follower of Christos (Christ). Christos means anointed/Messiah. Mashiach is the word for Messiah in Hebrew and Paraclete is the word for Christ in Hebrew. The original disciples never had any formal "name" for themselves but were later called Christians by the Romans who occupied Antioch Greece in which the word had a very different meaning in those ancient days!

27 June 2009 at 12:54  
Anonymous Hank Petram said...

eeyore, if you will accept a suggestion from a mere layman, it has always been my understanding that the "irreducible minimum" is set out in the Apostles' Creed: "I believe in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth," all the way down to "the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting."

27 June 2009 at 13:31  
Blogger Bryan said...

President Obama is lauded for his "doing God" simply because he only invokes God to support his own agenda. President Obama's use of God doesn't threaten the moral failings of anyone, but only adds a few wise sounding words to his otherwise vacuous speeches.

When President Obama mouths "we should build upon the Rock" he clearly isn't espousing the nation to build its economic policy on Christ Jesus, the Rock of Salvation, but upon Socialist Economic Policy, the "rock" of his own personal political agenda.

It is true that President Obama "does God", fairly often. But he only ever uses God, any god for that matter, as a means to push his own political ends. He would be wise to consider, along with the rest of we Americans (at least you Brits don't seem to think you are Israel reincarnated!), the passage in Joshua before the battle of Jericho. The LORD is neither for us nor against us, but rather we are either for Him or against Him!

27 June 2009 at 13:57  
Anonymous len said...

eeyore, Being a Christian is:
NOT keeping a set of rules,
NOT being baptized in water,
NOT living a moral and ethical life,
NOT trying to do your best,
NOT just being a member of a church or a denomination,

Real Christianity is a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.( Through the rebirth)

If all you have is a set of rules you have not found Jesus Christ you have found religion( mans attempt to make himself holy)instead of Gods way -(spiritual rebirth)

27 June 2009 at 14:08  
Blogger McKenzie said...


Does this mean that Satan is a Christian? Serious question!

27 June 2009 at 14:08  
Blogger McKenzie said...

Deuteronomy 13 is where it sets it all out quite clearly and comprehensively. Too long to paste in here.

There are too many traditions of man surrounding the modern context of the word.

27 June 2009 at 14:15  
Blogger English Viking said...

If this man were serious about Christ, he would behave in the way he does, nor pander to other 'religions'.

27 June 2009 at 14:36  
Anonymous Hank Petram said...

McKenzie, why? Does Satan believe in all those things? How do you know?

Does Satan exist? If so, why doesn't he get a mention in the Creed?

27 June 2009 at 15:20  
Blogger McKenzie said...

Maybe he wrote it?

27 June 2009 at 16:44  
Blogger McKenzie said...

Interestingly, the Apostles creed tells us that Jesus descends into Hell?

“I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth
And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary
Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried; He descended into hell
The third day he rose again from the dead
He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead
I believe in the Holy Ghost
I believe in a holy catholic church; the communion of saints
The forgiveness of sins
The resurrection of the body
And the life everlasting. Amen.”

27 June 2009 at 16:56  
Anonymous chris r said...

I once heard that the word for christian in the NT could be translated 'little anointed one'

That would be one who shares in the power of Christ, The Anointed One.

And that would make being a christian a matter of receiving power from Christ and acting accordingly.

A christian is also an apprentice, or student of Christ.

So merely holding to a set of creeds really doesn't cut it. Neither does making up one's own moral system (as do the false prophets Obama, Brown, Blair etc.)

Even the demons believe!

My own name (christopher) means 'bearer of the power of God'. A privilege indeed!

27 June 2009 at 17:07  
Blogger Brad said...

I'm guessing it's the same reason nobody, even on the Left, seriously argues with your church being established-nobody cares if an old cripple sleeps with his wife.

27 June 2009 at 17:16  
Anonymous chris r said...


"He descended into hell"

Indeed! And there are a number of scriptures to support. (Just as Jonah was three days and nights in the belly of the fish, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the Earth... )

Perhaps, a little off topic, however...

27 June 2009 at 17:22  
Blogger McKenzie said...

The Latin derivative of my name means to conquer. Considering what a complete loser I have ended up as, it holds no privilege or even carries any significance what so ever, apart from highlighting the insignificance of it.

But you seem to have humility and honesty of thought, which is to be highly commended.

Cranmer said he was busy today, but it is getting towards the end of the day and he may be lurking around so I am off, due to my overwhelming presence in here today.

Cheerio friends! (It's good that we can choose our friends)

27 June 2009 at 17:26  
Anonymous chris r said...

Your Grace

Apology for third post, but I can't resist:

The answer to your question is, of course, in your headline.

27 June 2009 at 17:30  
Blogger McKenzie said...

Chris...can't go without giving my opinion of the Jonah comment.

Where is the Chesed, where is the love, where is the concern, where is the justice, where is the righteousness in the book of Jonah? Certainly not in the heart of the prophet himself. There is some in the hearts of the pagan sailors who are, after all, quite reluctant to throw our Jonah into the sea. There is repentance in the hearts of the people of Nineveh. There is concern in the voice of God. But not in Jonah!

What the author of Jonah is dealing with is a problem as old as the ancient world and as new as today. The unknown author of the book of Jonah is working against a view of religion which separates the saved from the unsaved, the believer from the infidel, the insider from the outsider, the friend from the enemy.

What the book of Jonah is, is a literary attempt to espouse a philosophy of Universalism, to counteract the chauvinism of his day, by pointing out its absurdity and by lifting up the ideal of universal kinship. The author of the book of Jonah is, therefore, also a humanist because basic to his philosophy is a rejection of the superiority of Judaism, and the realization that our humanity is a more basic fact than our different religions, or our different races, or our different nationalities. We have a responsibility to each other, the author of the book of Jonah believes, that transcends the differences that divide us.

What concerns the author of the book of Jonah is people: not who they are, but what they do; not what gods they worship, but the quality of their lives; not the color of their skins, but the measure of their concern; not the nation of their citizenry, but their commitment to the good. Not even a prophet of God, one who has a special commission from the Lord God Yahweh himself, not even one who has made the journey through the belly of a whale---who does not, in the end, care about people--carries the true divine message.

That message, for the author of the book of Jonah, is clear. It is a message reflected in the little verse:
They questioned my theology
and spoke of modern thought,
bade me recite a dozen creeds
I could not as I ought.

I've but one creed I answer made
and do not want another.
I know I've passed from death to life,
because I love my brother.

(and sister)! It is the message reflected in the Universalist side of our religious heritage, a message carried in one of our familiar verses:

He drew a circle to shut me out:
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But love and I had the wit to win.
We drew a circle that took him in.

27 June 2009 at 17:47  
Anonymous len said...

Jesus speaking to his disciples, "And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Helper,that He may abide with you forever....The Spirit of Truth , whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows him, but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. ( John14:16-17)

And so it is written," The first Adam became a living being"
The last Adam (Jesus Christ)became a life giving spirit.( 1 Corinthians 15:45)

27 June 2009 at 17:53  
Anonymous Puritan Preacher said...

Has President Obama really has put his faith in Jesus Christ or does he only sprinkle religion around to connect with millions of Americans who do believe in God?
For Christians he uses parables like building on rock instead of sand to win the Christians.
For Muslims he quotes the Koran to win the Muslims.
Maybe he is all things to all people to keep most on his side, but one thing is certain.
The President believes in The President.

27 June 2009 at 18:17  
Anonymous eeyore said...

I seem to have got a few hares running - too many to respond to. My warmest thanks to all, and to Your Grace.

Len appears firmly of the opinion that only the born-again can be Christians. This is a very modern view, and alas wildly heterodox. It implies that only finders, not seekers, may be discovered in Len's heaven. One wonders if God shares this opinion. Len, you're stake fodder, I fear.

Chris R: the word Christian was apparently an early insult. If that is indeed the original form, it does refer to anointing, and the meaning was roughly "oily" - as in, "Bleughh, what an oily git!" (The reference is to Jesus's being king of the Jews, and therefore anointed, as kings were and are). It must have been a comment on the bearing and manners of early Christians, or it would have been idle and meaningless. A happier suggestion, though, has "Christus" as merely an ignorant error for "Chrestus", the name given to Jesus in Tacitus (Annales). This is the earliest non-Christian mention of Him apart from two passages in Josephus universally rejected by scholars for centuries.

So what does Chrestus mean? It means "excellent". An ancient scribe wishing to mark a passage as noteworthy might put a xi-rho monogram against it to abbreviate the word. This mark, called a chreston, had the same form as the Christian xi-rho symbol. Examples have survived which predate Christian usage.

McKenzie, your suggestion that Satan is a Christian is quite delightful. One does hope so! Would he be RC? One can hardly imagine him a Baptist.

27 June 2009 at 19:37  
Anonymous len said...

eeyore ,
Only the born- again can be Christians a modern view? The Lord Jesus Christ said so himself! And I think He must be in the best position to know what it takes to qualify as a Christian.

All the best.

27 June 2009 at 20:09  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Are there no depths the guy won't plumb?

27 June 2009 at 22:35  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Gnostic @22:35 - Brilliant question! Not that I think he's up to the Harrowing of Hell... [antithesis intended].

Len - thanks for your quotes, apposite as ever. I'm interested in what further light you might offer on the 'born again' concept, which I think is often confusing because of the "Born Again Christian" motif!

I've always believed that ALL who choose to be of Christ's community may avail themselves of the Holy Spirit and the opportunity of redemption (i.e. spiritual rebirth) - which He granted through His Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection. Should I take it that your 'born again' refers to the death and burial of the Old Man (Adam) and the Birth of the New (in Christ)?

And would we be logical to suppose that's what Obama means by 'Change'?

btw: on His Grace's ". . . when those of the Left talk about their faith, they are considered enlightened, sincere and devout?" Mightn't it rather depend on who's doing the considering?

28 June 2009 at 02:00  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

L'enfer c'est les autres.
On est ce qu'on fait!

28 June 2009 at 03:40  
Anonymous eeyore said...

Len: I wasn't aware that Jesus was a Christian; nor, if the Bible be any guide, was He aware of it either. More seriously, if you consider the millions upon millions of Christians down the centuries, and the relatively small number of them who may be said to have been "born again", I think even you would have to concede either that THEY were mistaken as to their religion, or YOU are. Take your pick.

28 June 2009 at 08:18  
Anonymous len said...

eeyore, John 3:3
Jesus answered him and said unto him," Verily, verily, I say unto thee Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God [KJV/AV]

John 3:3
Jesus answered him, " Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the Kingdom of God without being born from above"
( Modern Translation)
John 1:11-13
" He came unto his own,and His own did not receive Him.
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God,
even to those who believe in His name,
who were born,
not of blood,nor of the flesh, nor of the will of man,
but of God.( end of quote)

I am not offering a personal opinion of salvation but a scriptural one.

28 June 2009 at 11:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In my opinion, not original of course, Obama is just the American version of Blair. Blair is a wicked man and therefore, I suspect so too is Obama. I wouldn't believe a word that either of them says. Blair may not be a muslim, but he has a dangerous attitude towards that so-called religion. Obama has yet to demonstrate that he is not a muslim (since I understand it is acceptable for muslims to lie to unbelievers, if it serves their religion).

john in cheshire

28 June 2009 at 20:57  
Anonymous Philip said...

"Why is it that when politicians of the Right 'do God', they are 'religious nutters', hypocritical or 'extreme', but when those of the Left talk about their faith, they are considered enlightened, sincere and devout?"

Because those of the right are more likely to tend to apply their faith to Christian policy on 'life' issues and sexual ethics. This is of course hugely unpopular with the lib-left media (e.g. BBC) and establishment.

Those on the Left tend to use their 'Christian faith' to advance an ecumenical/multi-faith mish-mash, as well as action on world poverty etc (the latter with which no-one can disagree with), forgetting the uniqueness of Christ and necessity of salvation that can be found in Him alone.

28 June 2009 at 22:52  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

I Believe Blair to be Evil and so too is Obama.
In fact, he's just been sued for this.

28 June 2009 at 23:02  
Anonymous Konrad said...

"not a mouse",

While I understand an eroding economy and an ongoingly meager post-war lot has generated a fair bit of cultural strife in England, I'm not sure whether the governmental disdain for Christians is any less pronounced in Canada than in the UK: here, for example, the "multicul" has been even more aggressively and patronizingly advanced (the BNP would never be allowed, legally, to exist here - which, while comforting in certain ways, isn't in others), marginalizing Christian voices, and we have Human Rights Commissions, too, to put down the opinions of dissenters.

Frustratingly, though, where the UK has a Conservative Party that, under Cameron, champions the Anglo, sane and now-relevant views of Burke and Disraeli, Canada's party was borne of an amalgam of the British-oriented "Progressive Conservatives" and American-oriented "Reform", and has basically co-opted "God, gays, and guns" as a motif along with outmoot neoliberal economic solutions (corporate monopolies instead of state monopolies), making them, for many Central Canadian voters, a toxic solution to socialistic ideas.

As for Obama: I think, in a sense, he's allied with Christians, though decidedly not of the evangelist ilk - if anything, Obama's attempts to relate his message of "hope" and, invariably, "compassion" to Christianity harkens back to espousals of the social gospel. It's important to remember, though, that expressions of Christianity in politics aren't limited to right-wingers: like the neorealists, who wisely connected the dots between Catholicism and Marxism, or the aforementioned champions of the social gospel, Obama appears to be going "back to the future" to try and appease as well as construct a new Democratic religious coalition.


29 June 2009 at 00:14  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

Barack is a Muslim, I base this on the fact that many things point to the fact that Christianity is being eradicated.

Look at the Mid East, Look at In EUrope, 90% of immingration since 1997 has been Islamic.

Look in Europe when Muslims were being attacked, we intervened, MI6 even recruited Muslims from the UK to fight there.

Look in Africa.


As jeeps laden with UN troops drive up to the hotel the refugees are ecstatic: “We’re saved!” Then the exasperated UN Colonel has to break the news to Paul: “They’re not going to stay. They’re not going to stop the slaughter.” UN troops declare: “No Rwandans – only foreign nationals” as they check passports before hotel guests can board the buses. The Rwandans are devastated: “We’re being abandoned!”

It is at this point that the film digresses from the truth and very offensively depicts the UN failure to intervene and stop the genocide as racially motivated. The clearly angry and overwhelmed Canadian colonel is portrayed as saying that it’s because “You’re black…You’re an African” that the West would not intervene. But that is plainly not true. Just the year before, in 1993, US troops and later UN troops had intervened to save Black Muslims in Somalia.


The head of the UN peace keeping operations, at that time, was Kofi Annan – a Black man from Ghana. It is quite irresponsible and untrue to suggest that the Western superpowers do not care about black Africans. What would have been more honest and accurate would be if the film had pointed out that the UN was not going to stop the slaughter because the Tutsis were Christians.

As I heard all over the country when I was doing research for my “Holocaust in Rwanda” book – the West is quick to intervene to help Muslims – but not Christians. They’ll help Muslims in Bosnia, Muslims in Kuwait, Muslims in Somalia – but not Christians in Rwanda or Sudan. “It’s not that the UN is against Africans, they’re just against Christians!

29 June 2009 at 02:38  
Blogger Theo said...

The evidence that Obama is Muslim is fairly strong:

in his recent speech in Cairo he refered to the Qu'ran as "the holy Qu'ran and when speaking of Mohammed attached "Peace be upon him" to the end of his name;

any Muslim who converts usually describes it as a damascene experience, a conviction of sin under the influence of the Holy Spirit whereas Obama describes it as an intellectual decision;

any Muslim who converts is placed under sentence of death for apostasy by all branches of Islam, yet we hear not a hint of condemnation from any Islamic individual or group.

This all suggests that he is practising the deceit of the Islamic practice of taqiyya or dissimulation. It is also fairly certain that he was born in Kenya and is not a "natural born citizen"
of the US and not entitled to run for the presidency.

29 June 2009 at 03:17  
Anonymous Conrad said...

Anyone who claims Barack is a Muslim is ridiculous.

29 June 2009 at 04:55  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

‘Why is it that when politicians of the Right 'do God', they are 'religious nutters', hypocritical or 'extreme', but when those of the Left talk about their faith, they are considered enlightened, sincere and devout?’

I suggest that politicians of the Left ‘do god’. That is their religion is non-threatening. They make a fundamental mistake in exchanging the Heavenly Jerusalem for the earthly jerusalem. They ignore those doctrines of sin which do not fit seamlessly into their narrative, for example the prohibition on the practise of homosexuality. Blair and Obama are examples.

The difficulty with this in Left-liberalism is that it leads to stagnation. For example, unlike the scientific inquiry which progresses by examining difficult and ‘unpalatable’ questions; Left-liberalism ‘doing god’ simply ignores doctrines such as sin. If Blair and Obama spoke about sin and its effects upon relationships they would soon find themselves marginalised.

29 June 2009 at 08:22  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

Further to my comment.

I do think this is an important subject for it contains the inquiry as to whether or not Christian politicians should make explicit their faith in politics.

I recall CS Lewis writing the following in his essay Christian Apologetics:

‘We must attack the enemy’s line of communication. What we want is not more little books about Christianity, but more little books by Christians on other subjects – with their Christianity latent. You can see this most easily if you look at it the other way round. Our faith is not very likely to be shaken by any book on Hinduism. But if whenever we read an elementary book on Geology, Botany, Politics or Astronomy, we found that its implications were Hindu, that would shake us. It is not the books written in direct defence of Materialism that make the modern man a materialistic; it is the materialistic assumptions in all the other books. In the same way, it is the materialistic assumptions in all the other books. In the same way, it is not books on Christianity that will really trouble him. But he would be troubled if, whenever he wanted a cheap popular introduction to some science, the best work on the market was always by a Christian. The first step to the reconversion of the country is a series, produced by Christians, which can beat the Penguins and the Thinkers’ Library on their own ground. Its Christianity would have to be latent, not explicit: and of course its science perfectly honest. Science twisted in the interests of apologetics would be sin and folly…’

Example, the well known atheist philosopher recently converted when he evaluated the scientific evidence for Intelligent Design.

[Note: in the Intelligence Design debate the competition for recognition as valid is no longer between atheism and religion but between religions.]

Thus a Christian politician can combine his Christianity (in the latent sense) with his politics. Such a man is not called to be a bishop but a politician.

A bishop is called by God to be a bishop and not a politician. The bishop’s politics ought to be latent.

On another note I have been saddened as to why God has not provided thousands of Christians to become active in many critical debates. Two Sundays’ ago God rebuked me. He showed me several divisions that are waiting for the trumpet call from people like yourself. They are retired Christians, many of them professionals an experts in their chosen fields, who want to become engaged in debates but don’t know where to start.

So, I would be immensely pleased if your communicants could discover in their congregations who these retired folk are and point them to this site.

29 June 2009 at 09:15  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

That extract by C S Lewis was interesting...will read more on the subject, Thanks.

An example I suppose would be Oprah Winfrey, a committed Christian renowned for her Christian charity, hosting a programme where two homosexual men have adopted a few children. They live in a nice house;the children have all the attributes of affluent middle class life and the neighbours (they say)have all been very supportive of the adoptions.
At the end of the day when the children have gone to bed, the couple have a candlelit supper,kiss tenderly and this nightly ritual gives them quality time together.And I suppose if one
sees this sort of thing enough it will become the norm,authenticated by powerful Christian celebrities like Oprah Winfrey.

I found this programme very depressing .I felt terribly sorry for the children and I asked myself
what would I prefer? To be raised by two wealthy gay men or to be a street urchin in the third world?

29 June 2009 at 09:52  
Anonymous len said...

Oprah Winfrey, christian? come on!

29 June 2009 at 13:37  
Anonymous len said...

Oprah Winfrey, christian? come on!

29 June 2009 at 13:38  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

She thinks she's a Christian and classifies herself as one,well an American one anyway.

29 June 2009 at 13:58  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

The Archbishop of Canterbury and Oprah Winfrey share the same ideology on homosexuality so she has every right to consider herself
a Christian.The Archbishop does.. and
ironically is the leader of the second largest Christian denomination in the world.

However from my understanding of Christianity I don't think either of them are!

29 June 2009 at 14:11  
Anonymous Preacher said...

Just a quick word gents, the aim of Blair, Obama, Brown etc is to apparently herald world peace under the banner of the New World Order by the introduction of a thing called Synchretism, I read a book about it a while ago called "A study in Synchretism", the pieces are fitting together as described, the World Council of Churches were involved as were leaders of other faiths. The end was the subjugation of mankind in a religious mish mash with a new world leader & a New World Order, is this beginning to sound familiar?. Selah!

30 June 2009 at 18:25  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd rather be brought up by two
wealthy gays and then you could get back at them by writing a book
like Mommy Dearest or become a talk show host like Oprah Winfrey.

1 July 2009 at 08:08  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older