He's a Christian, not a Muslim, but so what if he was?
You hear it regularly now at McCain-Palin rallies. Barack Obama's name is pronounced with clear emphasis on his middle name -- Hussein. It is used in a way that is -- in the minds of those speaking-- derogatory. They want to reinforce that sense that Obama is really a Muslim (a view that continues to be spread virally through emails and blogs), despite the denials and the claims to be a Christian. This is added to questions about Bill Ayers, so that we're left with this impression that Obama is, somehow, either a Muslim terrorist or at least sympathetic to terrorists. Now all of this is simply ridiculous. First of all, Obama is not a Muslim and second of all he has shown now inclination toward terrorism. Yes, he knows Bill Ayers. He and Ayers have served on a couple of boards in the Chicago area, boards that have sought to improve education -- now that sounds terrorist like!
But there is a bigger question here, and that is whether being a Muslim is a deterrent from seeking the Presidency. Now, the Constitution reads very clearly that there should be no religious tests, but that doesn't prevent us from imposing them on candidates -- and we often do just that.
But why is it a problem to be a Muslim? Listen closely and you'll hear why. It may be subtle or overt, but there is an increasing equation of Muslim with terrorism. There's no distinction made. You can't trust a Muslim. The danger in all of this is that we are at war in two Islamic countries and of course we get a significant portion of our oil from Islamic countries. This rhetoric reinforces in the minds of those in the Middle East that first of all these wars are being waged against Muslims and second that the reason we're waging them is that we want to take their oil from them. Every time the level of the rhetoric is increased that sensibility is increased.
So the question is: What if Barack Obama were a Muslim? Why would that negate his qualifications to be President? The fact that he's not a Muslim doesn't detract from the question. Why would this be a bad thing?
But there is a bigger question here, and that is whether being a Muslim is a deterrent from seeking the Presidency. Now, the Constitution reads very clearly that there should be no religious tests, but that doesn't prevent us from imposing them on candidates -- and we often do just that.
But why is it a problem to be a Muslim? Listen closely and you'll hear why. It may be subtle or overt, but there is an increasing equation of Muslim with terrorism. There's no distinction made. You can't trust a Muslim. The danger in all of this is that we are at war in two Islamic countries and of course we get a significant portion of our oil from Islamic countries. This rhetoric reinforces in the minds of those in the Middle East that first of all these wars are being waged against Muslims and second that the reason we're waging them is that we want to take their oil from them. Every time the level of the rhetoric is increased that sensibility is increased.
So the question is: What if Barack Obama were a Muslim? Why would that negate his qualifications to be President? The fact that he's not a Muslim doesn't detract from the question. Why would this be a bad thing?
Comments
Simply this: the Muslim mindset is mired in theocracy -- rule by Islamic theologians. America is rooted in pluralism -- tolerance for all belief systems. Muslim teaching deplores democracy. America got its Bill of Rights (its liberty!) from the Greek idea of the democratic polis. Therefore, voting for a Muslim, even a tolerant Muslim, would be voting against American foundational principles.
While Americans should be tolerant and respectful of Muslims in our midst, we should think twice before voting for one. This is not xenophobia; it is simply wisdom. (Thankfully, Barak Obama is a Christian.)
~eric.
We have Muslims in Congress who fit in quite easily -- of course they are African-American converts to Islam. Time will tell how all of this works out.
Rendition and torture, pre-emptive war, supporting dictators, destroying the environment, and failure to care for the marginalized and failure to welcome the foreigner - these are not hallmarks of that Shining City; if you want the label for our country, then you must see that our country earns it. It is not something that can be claimed by force.
For America to become that Shining City America must become a true home for all who come to her shores, and that includes Muslims and Hindus and even Atheists as well as Christians.
John
Does anyone see the immense irony in this?
Christians have that same attitude.
Remember that when the Puritans spoke of the new world as a city on the hill, they assumed a godly commonwealth -- essentially a theocracy. We use that imagery in support of our republican democracy, but the Puritans didn't have this in mind!