OneNewsNow, the far-right website that bills itself as a source of the “latest news from a Christian perspective,” might as well have included that question in its “poll” of readers Wednesday. The website posted an Associated Press article reporting President Obama’s comments about his Christian faith. Then readers were invited to take part in this multiple-choice poll:
What troubles you the most about President Obama’s views about Christianity?
– He suggests Christ died on the cross to convey humility
– He believes there are other paths to grace that should be revered
– He sees no conflict between abortion and the precepts of Jesus Christ
Ummm… how about an option for “Nothing troubles me about the president’s views about Christianity”? Or “I consider his religious views none of my business.”
OneNewsNow would never consider optional answers like those, of course. Doing so would suggest that the website’s editors think some readers don’t share their religious bigotry.
Obama’s attempt to answer the question only suffices to illustrate the folly of explaining his religious views. No matter what one says on religion, some—mostly the fundamentalist evangelicals—will find serious fault and say the politician’s “truth” is false. Which illustrates perfectly why the First Amendment is so critical to the nation’s health. A politician opines about religious “truth” at his peril.
Obama worships Satan? I thought he was a Muslim.
Seriously, Obama should have known he was walking into a set trap when that woman questioned him about his faith but, really, he had no good options. The only answer that would have satisfied the Religious Righties would have been shocking to the rest of us (who are few in number anymore).
And had he declined to answer at all, diplomatically saying he believes one’s religious faith is a private matter and doesn’t have a place in an economic discussion (which it doesn’t!), that would have been unacceptable to the Righties. He surely would have been criticized for evading the question, and then there would be endless speculation about why he didn’t answer the question. So, there was no place for him to go with this one.
Of course a politician’s religious opinion and faith have no place in politics. That’s a given. But it’s also irrelevant. A politician opines about religious “peril” NOT at his/her peril – as long as he/she sticks to the message of conservative Christianity, the de facto State religion. America is hyper-religious and on its way to becoming Christianity’s answer to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Candidates and the elected are going to be asked about their religion. That is a FACT, and I’m sorry to say it is here to stay.
This is pretty typical of the OneNewsNow polls. I’m waiting to see the one that goes, “Do you believe Obama is a) Muslim, B) Satan, 3) the Anti-Christ, or 4) the Beast of the Apocalypse?”
1) “He suggests Christ died on the cross to convey humility.”
President Obama is correct. He did in part die on the cross to convey humility. Maybe the Christian Neo-Fundamentalists on the far right should read that Bible every once in a while.
“Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, [1] 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, [2] being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” (Philippians 4)
2) “He sees no conflict between abortion and the precepts of Jesus Christ.”
President Obama is correct. In the New Testament, Jesus does not address the subject of abortion at all. Just like the words “separation of church and state” are not in the U.S. constitution, the word “abortion” is not in the New Testament. Grapple with that. You cannot have it both ways.
3) “He believes there are other paths to grace that should be revered.”
I would have to see the precise context in which President Obama said this one. However, I think he probably means that he is willing tolerate someone else’s religious point of view rather than go to war with them and kill them over it. The Christian Neo-Fundamentalists have little respect for God or human conscience. God has given mankind the freedom to choose whichever religious path they might choose to take. This is one of those inalienable rights that Jefferson refers to in the Declaration of Independence. That includes the right to choose a path that might ultimately be a wrong path with consequences. In their zeal to rescue people from the perceived “consequences” that they see out there, they violate the will of God, which is for men to have a choice.
I’m going to go with option D “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” This is obviously a test of Obama’s interpretation of the Bible and a violation of Article 6 of the US Constitution. And those that don’t adhere to the Constitution? Well admittedly I’m a little harsh in my judgment on this but I consider them traitors.
That a woman questioned Pres. Obama about his religious faith I don’t think can be viewed as a violation of Article 6. Obama already IS in office so it can’t be claimed the woman was “testing” him as a condition of his qualification to run for office. Since he’s already in office, the woman wasn’t “testing” him; she was asking a question.
Her question, of course, was inappropriate, irrelevant, and a time-waster since neither Obama’s (nor any other president for that matter) faith is a private matter and not a matter for public discussion. But that won’t stop people from asking. And they sure as hell are going to keep asking. To muzzle them from asking would be a violation of their First Amendment rights. Or it would be viewed as such. Religious Righties will scream bloody murder if any Secret Service or handlers present at a presidential appearance were to try to stop them from asking the president about his religious faith. The only thing he can do is to just do the broken record tactic: repeat what he said before.
One of the statements I tried to get into the Texas Democratic Party Platform is: a person is no more or no less of a Christian if they are pro-life or pro-choice.