As I write this, the “news” story du jour centers around Islam, and whether a questioner should be chastened for calling Obama a Muslim.
The accusation of Obama being Muslim is (to me) absurd. Here’s why:
Can you seriously imagine him paying more than lip service to any belief, ideal, or duty higher than himself? A devout Muslim, for instance, would not be painting the White House in rainbow colours.
But why is this event even a story? And why does this claim keep coming up?
The answer to this question — if it can be determined — could help us make sense of otherwise confusing policy decisions his administration keeps making.
He tells us he’s Christian, sure. But few apparently believe him. Why?
Because of his words, his deeds, and his priorities.
He self-identifies as Christian (if it suits him), but he does not speak very highly of the faith itself.
Even in his references to Christianity, contrasted to competing belief systems (i.e. Islam) he tends to be more generous towards the motives and behaviours of other groups than he is of “his own”.
With respect to Islam, for instance, NASA — an agency supposedly focused on space exploration, and scientific inquiry — left people scratching their heads when it was announced that “Reaching out to the Muslim world” would be a top priority. Odd statement, that.
Likewise, he and his administration steadfastly refuse to utter the word “Islamic” in any connection whatever with terrorism. Even where that is the motivating principle, great pains are taken to avoid any connection between “real” Islam and such people. Remember that “workplace violence” situation in Fort Hood? Riiiight.
And how has he spoken of Christianity? At the prayer breakfast, he called out Christians as “unloving” for not being supportive. Of course he denounces the fire-breathers in his own camp as “unloving” when they’re “unsupportive” of Republican leaders… right??
He refuses to speak critically of Islam in any form, past or present. Islam conquered its neighbors; enslaved the children of the conquered, training them as “Janissaries” to kill in Allah’s name. But he manages to work in some finger-wagging about Christian atrocities in the Crusades.
Then, in Obama’s infamous “bitter clingers” quote, what was it he said?
“It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns, or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Religion is actually a bad thing? A curious thing for someone who claims to be Christian to say.
Let’s look at actions. What are his policies?
Obama’s official stance is foursquare in favour of immigration. He loves it. Can’t get people from faraway places into America fast enough.
People streaming in over the Southern border, completely avoiding due process? Celebrate them! They’re DREAMers. They are what makes America great!
Under his administration, 60,000 illegal immigrants were released from prison in the last two years, including literally hundreds who were convicted of homicide, rape, and kidnapping.
Add in his recent announcements to double down on how many refugees are brought in (with dubious steps in place to identify which people are truly refugees) and you get a clear picture that Obama has a great interest in bringing people into the nation.
Law and procedure can be set aside — and even criminal wrongdoing can be overlooked — so long as America welcomes these newcomers.
But wait — is this reaction true of ALL newcomers? Surely his administration is weeding out the undesirables, aren’t they?
Well, that would depend what you mean by undesirables.
Children riding across Mexico on trains, at great risk and unaccompanied by adults? Fence-jumpers? People lawfully deported three or four times for criminal behaviour? Nope, not them. Keep ‘em coming.
To Obama’s administration, Undesirables would include a different sort of people … people like the Romeike family. The Romeikes applied in the appropriate, lawful way to seek asylum from Germany. Asylum was duly awarded them by the courts. Are they DREAMers? No. Eric Holder and Obama’s administration tried very hard to throw them out anyway.
Undesirables might also include 12 Iraqi (Christian) Refugees fleeing the same regional violence the Syrian refugees are fleeing. (They are part of a group of 27 Iraqi Christians who have been detained six months as they await legal decisions concerning whether they should be deported.)
So, apparently, America has room for 10,000 refugees. But is shipping back thirty who fled from the same violence?
What both of the above cases have in common, is not race, so I don’t suggest that race is the determining factor here. The common denominator is that these would-be newcomers are Christian.
Does his bitter clinger quote give us insight? “Antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” We’ve seen quite a lot of antipathy. He has no taste for traditional values, or the people who hold them. “Loathe” may not be too strong a word.
Is it far-fetched to think that the same administration caught bludgeoning their ideological opponents with the IRS might show bias concerning which groups do (or do not) have to jump through immigration hoops?
My hypothesis is that Obama is neither Christian NOR Muslim. His religion and his politics are identical: Progressivism IS his religion; the altar to which he (and others) must bow.
His goal of “fundamentally transforming” America? Is it not, in essence, his own “Secular Theocracy”? His “new values”, to which the others must be held?
If The People become Balkanized so that they are no longer One People, a power vacuum opens up for a much stronger, more coercive State to “keep the trains running on time”.
If I am right in suggesting that this is his goal, then truly it is one worth opposing.