As you know, one in five Americans polled said they believe Obama is a Muslim. That accounts for roughly 20% of the population.
The White House responded that Obama is a strict Christian and that he “prays every day.” That may be so, but who is he praying to?
Obama didn’t just up and decide one day to run for president of the United States. His rapid ascension to the White House was carefully planned and executed. Embedded spies are taught to blend in with the population and to assume their habits and rituals so as not to draw attention to himself.
So I am not surprised that Obama renounced Muhammad and converted to practicing the Christian faith by hiding out in Rev. Wright’s church that he rarely attended.
What is surprising to me is that anyone would question the poll numbers, or the intelligence level of those polled. One only has to look to the president’s own words and actions to see why 20% of the people polled are confused about his faith.
Ask yourself these questions:
Does Obama jump at the chance to promote the Jewish or the Buddhist faiths?
Does Obama promote Christianity with the same fervor and passion that he promotes the Muslim faith?
Does Obama have a church home yet?
Has Obama attended a church in the 2 years that he has occupied the White House?
The answers are no, no, yes, no, and very seldom. So why should anybody believe that Obama is a Christian?

No Mr. President… You’re Wrong about Faith
by Kevin McCullough

President Obama believes that there is little difference in the faiths that people hold. The basis for this, in his own mind, comes from a lack of conviction to his own belief in his own faith, and therefore the assumption is easily transferred to those of other faiths as well. But lest you think I’m making assertions that aren’t well founded, let me back up. During his time in office, he claims to have replaced participation in a local church with getting little messages sent to him on his blackberry. Evidently God now has an app, and as such can easily fit in his pocket. He still has infamously not found, nor attended a church in the Washington DC area and he is nigh fifteen months into his Presidency. Digging further on his lack of belief, however, if we are to understand him from his own explanations, the last church he did attend was “pastored” by Dr. Jeremiah Wright. This was the same Afro-centric racist, “brother of the cloth,” that President Obama denounced in his run for Presidency. He denounced him for supposedly beginning to spout a whole new line of racist rhetoric, flat out lies, and distortions that while Obama “attended” faithfully for twenty years, Wright had somehow kept hidden from him. Wright had even kept those core convictions from Obama while Wright was mentoring the young family man, baptizing his two daughters, and acting as a family pastor to the Obamas. Yet if we are to understand Obama correctly, either he had never heard the core convictions of Wright’s racism preached from the pulpit, or somehow, in all the meaningful mentoring talks they had engaged in since young Obama moved to Chicago, Wright had avoided discussing them. I find both hard to believe since there are hours of video tape of Wright screaming the garbage at the top of his lungs. (Continued)

No Mr. President… You’re Wrong about Faith (Continued)
by Kevin McCullough

The President has attempted to be as pragmatic in his approach to faith as he has been towards foreign policy. To be blunt, constantly kicking in Israel’s teeth on one hand, while going to the University in Cairo and telling the Muslim world that America shared their values on the other. Woah big fella—female subjugation, stoning to death women who have been raped, and even female genital mutilation have nothing to do with American values. And in this week’s radio address to the nation, the President did it again. He showed either a lack of sophistication that faiths are all different, or he purposefully intends to make them such, drawing them all into—not the family of God—but the “family of man.” In honesty Obama, wants little of organized faith to be present in today’s national culture. Oh sure getting the little first daughters all decked out in their new Easter dresses and letting them scurry for eggs on the White House lawn is fun and all, but anything more “faith-based” than that and we’re going to have problems. That’s why he didn’t just not attend a White House National Day of Prayer and Remembrance last year… He canceled it. Those people of faith are the ones causing all the problems after all. They don’t trust his government schemes because they’d prefer to keep more of their own dollars and be able to give more generously to the missions and causes they believe in. They don’t trust his view of caring for the “least of these” because every time the President attempts to, it creates worsening conditions for those who are the least. They don’t trust his view of what is sacred, because President Obama believes it’s somehow moral to allow a born infant to die of starvation on the shelf of a soiled utility closet in a hospital named “Christ.” They don’t trust his view of morality because he’s desiring to put homosexuals in the same bunks with soldiers they are attracted to. Yet he seems to think that men lockering with women would be a problem. They don’t trust his judgement because he seems to trust others whose judgement is not even debatable. (Wright, Wallis, Ahmedinejad, Chavez) He also openly defies the sound judgement of our allies. Mr. President there is a world of difference between the moral code of Islam, and that of Jews and Christians. Even the debate between Judaism and Christianity is an important one as the two groups couldn’t be more apart on the fundamental understanding of redemption, the Messiah, and what is to come. Your ignorance in attempting to sweep it all together and tie it up in a bow is as pathetic and dishonest as nearly any policy move you’ve made. (And that’s admitting a great deal!) Finally, towards the end of your radio address this week you claimed that religious faith had been openly practiced in every corner of the world for thousands of years. Mr. President, this simply isn’t true. Jews were put to death in the 30’s and 40’s for identifying their faith and practicing it even in secret. And for the better part of 70 years throughout the Soviet block of nations the same could be said for genuine Christianity. And in many ways this exact persecution continues in Somalia, the Sudan, sub-saharan Africa, and for much of Asia and the middle and far east. So Mr. President your assertions and statements in this week’s radio address were either grotesquely ignorant or purposefully dishonest. Which was it sir?

Cheers, and thanks for the conversation.

Glider:

“Christianity may be right and proper for you.  But I do as originally pointed out find it distasteful that politicians use it as a manipulative tool.  It is always “God Bless Our Young Fighting Men and Women” to help justify one war or another.  How often do you hear “God Bless Our Citizens Lacking Healthcare” or “God Bless Our Peace Corps” or “God Bless Our Poor and Elderly”?”

“One last point if it is not obvious to you, is that opposition to Science by the Church is alive and well today in the form of its opposition to Stem Cell Research and other work on Human Genetics that will ultimately lead to more healthy and better lives for our children.”

On these two point we are in total agreement.

Peace.

One last point if it is not obvious to you, is that opposition to Science by the Church is alive and well today in the form of its opposition to Stem Cell Research and other work on Human Genetics that will ultimately lead to more healthy and better lives for our children.

“Other than Copernicus, Galileo and Darwin, none of the others I mentioned were “persecuted by the Church”

Yeah, great record, only 43% of the great minds of science you cited as “God fearing” were persecuted or opposed by the Church (and one of their defenders tortured and burnt at the stake).  So what’s your point?  Science has dragged Christianity kicking and screaming every step of the way to its point of the most minimalist of acceptances of irrefutable scientific facts.  I am not confused about this issue.  Do your own research since you seem to think otherwise.  The primary citation listed is extensive and located here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/andrew_white/Andrew_White.html

And Maani, seriously this is a simply a forum for the exchange ideas and debating.  I have no problem with individuals spiritually finding strength and direction in religion.  I like aspects of Buddhism that are not in conflict with Science and even like the idea of Karma (which is in conflict) and they are valuable for me in coping with life.  Different philosophies work and help different people.  Christianity may be right and proper for you.  But I do as originally pointed out find it distasteful that politicians use it as a manipulative tool.  It is always “God Bless Our Young Fighting Men and Women” to help justify one war or another.  How often do you hear “God Bless Our Citizens Lacking Healthcare” or “God Bless Our Peace Corps” or “God Bless Our Poor and Elderly”?

Glider:

“The Church has persecuted or opposed almost every great scientist of the last 500 years.”

Please back this up with proof.  Other than Copernicus, Galileo and Darwin, none of the others I mentioned were “persecuted by the Church,” nor were other believing scientists, including Kelvin, Planck, Carver, Heisenberg, Curie, Dirac, Brahe, Fermi, and at least a dozen others.

Peace.

in reference to my statement:
“with regard to the ‘split between science and religion’ being ‘manufactured’ I disagree as they are naturally opposed to one another.”

Maani, please do take Einstein’s word but make an effort to actually understood his essay.  Let me elaborate on the meaning I intended and then translate what Einstein is trying to tell you.  Science and Religion (Christianity, Judaism, Islam), are fundamentally different in the mechanisms by which they answer questions.  Your posted essay describes this as “religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other”.  Now, my statement pushes this further and proposes that not only are they separate but that they are “naturally opposed” [my statement is technically incorrect only in omitting the possibility to construct a religion that does not oppose Science (Buddhism gets close), but for all practical purposes vis-a-vis Christianity, I stand by it].
 
Basically, Science and Christianity do overlap in their goal of attempting to explain the nature of the Universe.  Christianity provides a static solution based on what some interpreted to be reality 2000 years ago.  Science, employs a rigorous method of hypothesis and experimentation to arrive at solutions that over time become ever more accurate.  I contend these different methods tend to “naturally” give rise to different solutions.  Since Science’s different solutions are a threat to Religion’s fixed interpretation of reality there has been a great deal of conflict, both historical and current, between the Church and Science.  For a overview please see the following web page dedicated to this topic (note how the first 3 great scientists you cite had good reason to be God “fearing”):

Myth: There is no war between Science and Christianity.
Fact: The Church has persecuted or opposed almost every great scientist of the last 500 years.
see http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-sciencechristianity.htm

Now with regards to Einstein’s essay you completely miss his point.  In short he identifies the “strength of emotion” as the driving force for the best scientists and labels it a “cosmic religious feeling”.  He is emphasizing that scientist’s have a purity of aspiring to discover the truth and have a “faith” that the world can be explained by rational rules.  That the scientist can, with great dedication, actually take part in the unraveling of the reality of the nature of the Universe is, in my own experience, the basis for this cosmic religious strength of emotion that Einstein describes in his essay.  That is what Einstein is trying to tell you.  This essay says absolutely nothing about the compatibility of the current substance of Science and Christianity other than that great Science shares the same strong emotional desire to understand the Cosmos.

Peace to you as well.

Glider:

“With regard to the ‘split between science and religion’ being ‘manufactured’ I disagree as they are naturally opposed to one another.”

Excuse me? Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Leeuwenhoek, Faraday, Pasteur - all (and many others) were both scientists AND “God-fearing” men.  Even Einstein, who famously did not believe in a “personal” God, said the following (And forgive me if I take his word over yours):

“I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and through the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength…Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

Peace.

Hello Diamond,

I appreciate your input to the discussion and both agree and disagree with your contentions.  I will only agree with you on the most technical terms that “there’s absolutely no reason you can’t believe in God and evolution”.  But I will counter with “is that truly a sufficient basis upon which to form your philosophy of life”?  That you will believe in what is"not impossible” and ignore what is “probable”?  For me the answer is of course not!  And I am forced to conclude there is no God as described by the primitive people who wrote the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, or described the Greek and Roman Gods.  Each has valuable philosophy to impart but each is based on fiction.

With regard to the “split between science and religion” being “manufactured” I disagree as they are naturally opposed to one another.  While true that Science was diverted by Alchemy (and self corrected!), the phenomena they sought was physically possible and is exercised by the Universe, if not by humans economically.  So what?  If you want to talk about taints think about the Biblical contention that we are merely 6000 years old!  That there is no mention of Dinosaurs or a serious discussion of the greater universe by a book that is purported to be communicated by a perfect “Creator” as related to us by the “Church” when they are not busy banging little boys.

But this is America, and while we are not free to elect officials that represent us, we are free to believe whatever crap does not effect the transfer of wealth to the elite.  So God Bless our great country and pass the Koolaid

Glider there’s absolutely no reason you can’t believe in God and evolution. There’s no reason that evolution couldn’t have been set in train by some all powerful force the way you program a computer. I don’t know if that’s what happened but the truth is, neither do you and neither does anyone else because none of us were around when it happened. The Christo Fascists just use evolution as a political football the same way they use Muslims and drugs and the environment as a political football. They’re not actually interested in the truth: they just want to play their destructive and divisive games and crush any form of dissent from their warped ideology. The last thing they want is for anyone to become an enlightened and informed participant in their democracy.

The split between science and religion is manufactured and only started from around the time of the witch hunts. Astrology was once part of science and a whole branch of science once existed to find a way to turn base metals into gold. Alchemy now only exists as a term that belongs to the time of Merlin the magician but those who drew a line between science and religion thew the baby out with the bathwater. It extends to the hatred the medical profession has for herbal remedies - even though aspirin came from the bark of the willow tree and the contraceptive pill was once the sap of a tree and penicillin was derived from a fungus that was once used by the Romans to treat wounds. And I could go on. It has been said that there’s a cure for every disease in nature but the drug companies certainly don’t want to talk about THAT.

Darwin was right that everything mutates (changes) in order to survive (which is as true of a flu virus as it is of a frog) and that all life on earth came from a single ancestor and, clearly, only a genuine religious fanatic or a complete ignoramus believes that the Old Testament is literal fact and that the world was created in six days and the earth is 6,000 years old. Yes, Sarah Palin, I’m talking about you.

Obama strikes again!  Another belly crawling grovel, as revolting as it is pathetic.

Go ahead Barry, prove to everyone that you’re not really as smart as so many of us thought you were!

Maani,

Well recently I have tried to adopt a more Buddhist type attitude of tolerating others views on religion and have tried to refrain from actively attacking their outlook.  But being a Westerner that is tough and I have certainly slipped back in old ways in my postings here .

Regarding my “two more errors” please consider whether you are creating red herrings that do not contribute to the larger points being made. 

I agree completely that Science constantly reexamines itself and adopts and refines theories for a better fit of available data.  Certainly, current theories on the evolutionary process and the nature of the universe are virtually guaranteed to change given past experience.  What I am missing is just where my previous posting was inconsistent with this reality.  In fact you were originally the one fixing the argument to what Darwin believed in the 19th Century.  Are you now proposing that new data may be reported that pinpoints the location of Jesus and my overall contention will be disproven?

Regarding “indoctrination” I never said “every” Christian was indoctrinated from a young age.  I do contend that religious indoctrination explains why there is such a large proportion of our population that believes both in evolution and Christianity.  If you doubt this please explain why belief in Christianity and Islam is so highly correlated with geographic locations and with what each society raises their children to believe.  But to get back on track you were the one trying to link a viewpoint being popular with meaning it is likely valid.  There may be some correlation there but it is weak and not a basis for proving a point.

Whatever happened to the “there shall be no religious requirements for those serving public office and the separation of church-religion- and state? I am tired of all of these false “Christians” who shout from the top of Capitol Hill, yet in their own lives are deceiving not only themselves, but sheeple all over the nation.

As for Obama reaffirming his Christianity, religion should be a private and personal matter and best left out of politics and the running of this country. Politicians who let their personal beliefs and views influence the laws they inflict upon the general population have no business in politics as they are failing to do the job they were elected for and rather want to oppress, force and coerce other people into their narrow view of their world and if and when that happens, like the abortion issues or gay rights or other matters that are of a personal nature, these political hacks need to be immediately fired from their jobs and loose all the benefits that go along with it.

LEAVE RELIGION AT THE DOOR OT AT HOME WHEN WORKING IN POLITICS. NO COMPROMISE.

Glider:

While I agree with your basic premise - that religious should not be a “litmus test” (whether actual or tacit) for elected office, particularly the presidency - you make two more errors.

Yes, PART of Darwin’s theory has been further bolstered in the wake of DNA and other new science.  But on the other hand, parts of his theory have been undermined by the same.  You may suggest (correctly) that this is, in fact, one of the great things about science: that it “checks itself” occasionally, and self-corrects.  But it also means that long-held theories may NOT be as strong as they seem, even over decades, or centuries.  Consider how Freud has been almost completely debunked, except for a few (admittedly brilliant) concepts of his theories.

Second, you make the mistake (as I read it) that every believer is “indoctrinated”; i.e., comes from a family in which religion was the norm, and thus begain learning about it from toddlerhood.  However, this is simply not the case.  Every poll done in the past 10 or 20 years (including the most recent well-publicized Pew and other polls) shows that a growing number of believers become believers later in life - sometimes (like me) in their late teens/early 20s, others in midlife, still others much later.  And while you could suggest (again, correctly) that some, maybe many, of these people come to faith either via a crisis or as a “crutch,” a goodly number do not: they come to it thoughtfully, “feelingly,” spiritually.  As I have noted, I come from a highly rationalist, empiricist household, with a mother who is a Ph.D. scientist and a father who was a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist.  And when I became a believer in my late teens/early 20s, I did not “cast off” the first 20 years of my life and simply reject everything I knew.  Nor do most people who come to faith other than as a result of indoctrination.

Again, you need to broaden the way you see things.  Otherwise, one could accuse you of hypocrisy with respect to narrow-mindedness - something that believers are constantly accused of.

Peace.

So Obama is an up front Christian, but 20 percent of the morons in this nation believe he is a Muslim, what does this mean?

Could it mean Obama is a closet Muslim sort of like Republicans are closet gays with the difference being, Obama does not openly trash talk Muslims and actually seems to support freedom of religion?  So Obama seems to be missing the the obvious Neanderthal hypocrisy the hate gay Republicans seem to have.

Really I do not care if my president is Christian or gay, but it would be much more appreciated if this was more like;...... “don’t ask, don’t tell”!

Maani,

Touche and believe what you will.  I understand all too well the power of the religious indoctrination put upon young minds for a decade.  It is not easily shed.  So that there are “a great many Christians who believe in evolution” is not surprising nor an argument for its validity.

Of course, the case for Darwinian Evolution has expanded greatly beyond what Darwin himself understood so it is not proper to cite the man as if he provides the last word on this subject.  He began a field of study that has moved well beyond himself as is the natural course of Science.  With the advent of carbon dating, DNA sequence analysis, and a reasonable map of the development of our current Universe our ability to properly place ourselves in the big picture is far more clear than ever before.  Obviously there is a God which is the Universe itself, the mass/energy that constitutes it and the physical laws they determine.  Call that itself the “Creator” and I am fine.

But to then take this cobbled together Bible, that is now discredited with many factual errors, hand pick your favorite passages and assign what is left as the “God” that created this mass/energy Universe to set in motion so that Darwinian Evolution could finally create his goal of making Mankind some 14 billion years later is a rationalization on an epic scale.

But my main point remains that in a sane world belief in this wild tale would have no business being a litmus test for POTUS.  It would perhaps have some benefit if the media would instead insist that presidents have to adhere to a moral base that would not for example allow the our current killing spree in Iraq/Af-Pak.  But “God Bless Our Troops” and their “Service” to the world is what we get out of Obama’s Christian belief system.

Glider:

You are far too myopic in your thinking.  There are a great many Christians who believe in evolution, but that it was God that set evolution in motion.  One person who believed this was…Darwin:

“Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created.  To my mind, it accords better with what we know about THE LAWS IMPRESSED UPON MATTER BY THE CREATOR that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual…There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, HAVING BEEN BREATHED INTO A FEW FORMS OR INTO ONE…”  (Emphases mine)

It always amuses me how many people argue Darwin without having read him, or having forgotten what Origin of Species actually says.  Darwin did NOT set out to disprove the existence of God.  He merely set out to prove that each species was not “specially created”; i.e., created from “whole cloth.”  And he did indeed prove that.

But contrary to what our educational system teaches, Darwin was a believer who (i) earned his only degree in theology (he never earned a degree in science, though he was mentored by the best of his time), (ii) never completely gave up his faith, though he had “moments of doubt,” (iii) became a deacon of his local church after completing his final book, and (iv) was buried in Westminster Abbey, in which atheists may not be buried.

Darwin was actually quite surprised by what people “read into” Origin, Descent and other books.  He said, “I find it absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist…I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.”

Put that in your pipe and smoke it…LOL.

Peace.

Maani, you are a simpleton and individuals who contend to believe both in Darwinian Evolution and anything resembling the content of the Bible are Hypocrites.

To believe in Darwinian Evolution is to believe we have evolved to our present state from simple prokaryote cells over a period of billions of years of shaping by semi random forces of the environment and competitive responses to them.  To simultaneously believe that and that we were “made by God in his image” is beyond absurd, and not a proper qualification for being POTUS.  But this is Idiot America.

This childish insistence on knowing who believes what religion is just another depressing proof of the ignorant prejudice of many Americans.

Glider:

Au contraire.  Believing in God (and even Jesus) and believing in Darwinian evolution are not mutually exclusive.  True, “fundamentalist” believers tend to believe in an “inerrant” Bible, and thus a literal interpretation of creation.

But this is not the case for all, or perhaps even most, Christians.  In this regard, your reiteration of the “science v. religion” “tension” is inapt, and unhelpful.

Peace.

Great!  Nice to be reminded that none of our Presidents are allowed to believe in Darwinian Evolution and be electable by Idiot America.  They are required to be either liars are be ignorant.