« Was Sarah Palin's SNL appearance funny? | Main | James Dobson interviews Sarah Palin »

October 21, 2008

Obama's non-Muslim faith

Twelve percent of Americans believe Barack Obama is a Muslim, a number that has not decreased since June, according to a survey released by the Pew Research Center today.

The Boston Globe's Michael Paulson just posted a video from the American News Project that shows John McCain supporters, some of whom are Muslim, confronting a fellow McCain supporter who claimed that Obama is "a socialist with an Islamic background.'' NPR has a story on how Obama's distance from Muslims is hurting his appeal in Michigan.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed Obama on Sunday and addressed those the rumors that Obama is a Muslim.

"Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, 'He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists.' This is not the way we should be doing it in America."


If you are an "obedient" muslim you are a terrorist.

I guess there's something wrong with me, because the thought of a Muslim as our president scares me. But I'm trusting God: He knows more than I do...still, don't like the idea AT ALL.

If B. Obama isn't a Christian he sure shows all fruit of the Spirit. Many righteous men and women have stayed in a church for long periods of time, and most have heard their pastor say things they did not agree with. Sound bits from any mere pastor or pulpit could get little scary over a long period of time. Obama didn't do what most church people do and that is leave with the first wrong word from their pastor. Throw stones if you must, but as a pastor for some 20 years as I heard this man not back away from his pastor until his pastor allowed pride and the flesh to rule-it spoke volumes to me about our next president B.Obama! I have really seen Charter from every attack this man has faced! Most men would have crumbled!

Well said Colin. Oh, if only you had run for president years ago.

Thanks so much for the interesting link. It's interesting that 19% of "white" evangelical voters think that Sen. Obama is a Muslim, compared to 8% of "white" Hispanic Catholic voters, as I live in a state that's heavily Hispanic. (The majority of whom support Obama, especially strong with older Hispanic voters at 70%, last reputable poll I saw). Why are "white" Hispanic Catholic voters much less likely to believe that Obama isn't a Muslim than "white" evangelicals?

I don't know any Hispanic people who identify as "white," and the people I know would likely take offense at being labeled as such, though personal experience is not to be trusted at all for general trends. The reason why many Hispanics are officially labeled as "white" goes back to the 1840s, when Hispanic people in the Southwest became citizens as stipulated in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago, if memory serves, with Mexico. As only "white" people could be citizens back then...the then new citizens were labeled as such for census purposes...or at least that's the story I've read.

When confronted by a supporter who "accused" Obama of being "an Arab," McCain takes the mic and says, "No ma'am, he's a decent family man." Wha? Of course, she meant to accuse him of being a Muslim, but again I say, "Wha?" Powell has it right, and Christians need to be the first to stand up and say that being Muslim does not disqualify one from being president. I suspect that a devout Muslim in office would to more to advance a conservative social agenda (heterosexual marriage, anti-abortion) than any Baptist.

Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.

Yet there are Catholics and Evangelicals-even self-identified pro-life Catholics and Evangelicals - who aggressively promote Obama's candidacy and even declare him the preferred candidate from the pro-life point of view.

What is going on here?

I have examined the arguments advanced by Obama's self-identified pro-life supporters, and they are spectacularly weak. It is nearly unfathomable to me that those advancing them can honestly believe what they are saying. But before proving my claims about Obama's abortion extremism, let me explain why I have described Obama as "pro-abortion" rather than "pro-choice."

According to the standard argument for the distinction between these labels, nobody is pro-abortion. Everybody would prefer a world without abortions. After all, what woman would deliberately get pregnant just to have an abortion? But given the world as it is, sometimes women find themselves with unplanned pregnancies at times in their lives when having a baby would present significant problems for them. So even if abortion is not medically required, it should be permitted, made as widely available as possible and, when necessary, paid for with taxpayers' money.

The defect in this argument can easily be brought into focus if we shift to the moral question that vexed an earlier generation of Americans: slavery. Many people at the time of the American founding would have preferred a world without slavery but nonetheless opposed abolition. Such people - Thomas Jefferson was one - reasoned that, given the world as it was, with slavery woven into the fabric of society just as it had often been throughout history, the economic consequences of abolition for society as a whole and for owners of plantations and other businesses that relied on slave labor would be dire. Many people who argued in this way were not monsters but honest and sincere, albeit profoundly mistaken. Some (though not Jefferson) showed their personal opposition to slavery by declining to own slaves themselves or freeing slaves whom they had purchased or inherited. They certainly didn't think anyone should be forced to own slaves. Still, they maintained that slavery should remain a legally permitted option and be given constitutional protection.

Would we describe such people, not as pro-slavery, but as "pro-choice"? Of course we would not. It wouldn't matter to us that they were "personally opposed" to slavery, or that they wished that slavery were "unnecessary," or that they wouldn't dream of forcing anyone to own slaves. We would hoot at the faux sophistication of a placard that said "Against slavery? Don't own one." We would observe that the fundamental divide is between people who believe that law and public power should permit slavery, and those who think that owning slaves is an unjust choice that should be prohibited.

Just for the sake of argument, though, let us assume that there could be a morally meaningful distinction between being "pro-abortion" and being "pro-choice." Who would qualify for the latter description? Barack Obama certainly would not. For, unlike his running mate Joe Biden, Obama does not think that abortion is a purely private choice that public authority should refrain from getting involved in. Now, Senator Biden is hardly pro-life. He believes that the killing of the unborn should be legally permitted and relatively unencumbered. But unlike Obama, at least Biden has sometimes opposed using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion, thereby leaving Americans free to choose not to implicate themselves in it. If we stretch things to create a meaningful category called "pro-choice," then Biden might be a plausible candidate for the label; at least on occasions when he respects your choice or mine not to facilitate deliberate feticide.

The same cannot be said for Barack Obama. For starters, he supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest. The abortion industry laments that this longstanding federal law, according to the pro-abortion group NARAL, "forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead." In other words, a whole lot of people who are alive today would have been exterminated in utero were it not for the Hyde Amendment. Obama has promised to reverse the situation so that abortions that the industry complains are not happening (because the federal government is not subsidizing them) would happen. That is why people who profit from abortion love Obama even more than they do his running mate.

But this barely scratches the surface of Obama's extremism. He has promised that "the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act" (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed "fundamental right" to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including, as Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has noted in a statement condemning the proposed Act, "a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined 'health' reasons." In essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry-protections against being forced to participate in the practice of abortion or else lose their jobs. The pro-abortion National Organization for Women has proclaimed with approval that FOCA would "sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies."

It gets worse. Obama, unlike even many "pro-choice" legislators, opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice. He has referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a "punishment" that she should not endure. He has stated that women's equality requires access to abortion on demand. Appallingly, he wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need. There is certainly nothing "pro-choice" about that.

But it gets even worse. Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies. Here is a concrete test of whether Obama is "pro-choice" rather than pro-abortion. He flunked. Even Senator Edward Kennedy voted to include coverage of unborn children in S-CHIP. But Barack Obama stood resolutely with the most stalwart abortion advocates in opposing it.

It gets worse yet. In an act of breathtaking injustice which the Obama campaign lied about until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done, as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. This legislation would not have banned any abortions. Indeed, it included a specific provision ensuring that it did not affect abortion laws. (This is one of the points Obama and his campaign lied about until they were caught.) The federal version of the bill passed unanimously in the United States Senate, winning the support of such ardent advocates of legal abortion as John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. But Barack Obama opposed it and worked to defeat it. For him, a child marked for abortion gets no protection-even ordinary medical or comfort care-even if she is born alive and entirely separated from her mother. So Obama has favored protecting what is literally a form of infanticide.

You may be thinking, it can't get worse than that. But it does.

For several years, Americans have been debating the use for biomedical research of embryos produced by in vitro fertilization (originally for reproductive purposes) but now left in a frozen condition in cryopreservation units. President Bush has restricted the use of federal funds for stem-cell research of the type that makes use of these embryos and destroys them in the process. I support the President's restriction, but some legislators with excellent pro-life records, including John McCain, argue that the use of federal money should be permitted where the embryos are going to be discarded or die anyway as the result of the parents' decision. Senator Obama, too, wants to lift the restriction.

But Obama would not stop there. He has co-sponsored a bill-strongly opposed by McCain-that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning. It would make it a federal crime for a woman to save an embryo by agreeing to have the tiny developing human being implanted in her womb so that he or she could be brought to term. This "clone and kill" bill would, if enacted, bring something to America that has heretofore existed only in China-the equivalent of legally mandated abortion. In an audacious act of deceit, Obama and his co-sponsors misleadingly call this an anti-cloning bill. But it is nothing of the kind. What it bans is not cloning, but allowing the embryonic children produced by cloning to survive.

Can it get still worse? Yes.

Decent people of every persuasion hold out the increasingly realistic hope of resolving the moral issue surrounding embryonic stem-cell research by developing methods to produce the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells without using (or producing) embryos. But when a bill was introduced in the United States Senate to put a modest amount of federal money into research to develop these methods, Barack Obama was one of the few senators who opposed it. From any rational vantage point, this is unconscionable. Why would someone not wish to find a method of producing the pluripotent cells scientists want that all Americans could enthusiastically endorse? Why create and kill human embryos when there are alternatives that do not require the taking of nascent human lives? It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.

This ultimate manifestation of Obama's extremism brings us back to the puzzle of his pro-life Catholic and Evangelical apologists.

They typically do not deny the facts I have reported. They could not; each one is a matter of public record. But despite Obama's injustices against the most vulnerable human beings, and despite the extraordinary support he receives from the industry that profits from killing the unborn (which should be a good indicator of where he stands), some Obama supporters insist that he is the better candidate from the pro-life point of view.

They say that his economic and social policies would so diminish the demand for abortion that the overall number would actually go down-despite the federal subsidizing of abortion and the elimination of hundreds of pro-life laws. The way to save lots of unborn babies, they say, is to vote for the pro-abortion-oops! "pro-choice"-candidate. They tell us not to worry that Obama opposes the Hyde Amendment, the Mexico City Policy (against funding abortion abroad), parental consent and notification laws, conscience protections, and the funding of alternatives to embryo-destructive research. They ask us to look past his support for Roe v. Wade, the Freedom of Choice Act, partial-birth abortion, and human cloning and embryo-killing. An Obama presidency, they insist, means less killing of the unborn.

This is delusional.

We know that the federal and state pro-life laws and policies that Obama has promised to sweep away (and that John McCain would protect) save thousands of lives every year. Studies conducted by Professor Michael New and other social scientists have removed any doubt. Often enough, the abortion lobby itself confirms the truth of what these scholars have determined. Tom McClusky has observed that Planned Parenthood's own statistics show that in each of the seven states that have FOCA-type legislation on the books, "abortion rates have increased while the national rate has decreased." In Maryland, where a bill similar to the one favored by Obama was enacted in 1991, he notes that "abortion rates have increased by 8 percent while the overall national abortion rate decreased by 9 percent." No one is really surprised. After all, the message clearly conveyed by policies such as those Obama favors is that abortion is a legitimate solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies - so clearly legitimate that taxpayers should be forced to pay for it.

But for a moment let's suppose, against all the evidence, that Obama's proposals would reduce the number of abortions, even while subsidizing the killing with taxpayer dollars. Even so, many more unborn human beings would likely be killed under Obama than under McCain. A Congress controlled by strong Democratic majorities under Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would enact the bill authorizing the mass industrial production of human embryos by cloning for research in which they are killed. As president, Obama would sign it. The number of tiny humans created and killed under this legislation (assuming that an efficient human cloning technique is soon perfected) could dwarf the number of lives saved as a result of the reduced demand for abortion-even if we take a delusionally optimistic view of what that number would be.

Barack Obama and John McCain differ on many important issues about which reasonable people of goodwill, including pro-life Americans of every faith, disagree: how best to fight international terrorism, how to restore economic growth and prosperity, how to distribute the tax burden and reduce poverty, etc.

But on abortion and the industrial creation of embryos for destructive research, there is a profound difference of moral principle, not just prudence. These questions reveal the character and judgment of each man. Barack Obama is deeply committed to the belief that members of an entire class of human beings have no rights that others must respect. Across the spectrum of pro-life concerns for the unborn, he would deny these small and vulnerable members of the human family the basic protection of the laws. Over the next four to eight years, as many as five or even six U.S. Supreme Court justices could retire. Obama enthusiastically supports Roe v. Wade and would appoint judges who would protect that morally and constitutionally disastrous decision and even expand its scope. Indeed, in an interview in Glamour magazine, he made it clear that he would apply a litmus test for Supreme Court nominations: jurists who do not support Roe will not be considered for appointment by Obama. John McCain, by contrast, opposes Roe and would appoint judges likely to overturn it. This would not make abortion illegal, but it would return the issue to the forums of democratic deliberation, where pro-life Americans could engage in a fair debate to persuade fellow citizens that killing the unborn is no way to address the problems of pregnant women in need.

What kind of America do we want our beloved nation to be? Barack Obama's America is one in which being human just isn't enough to warrant care and protection. It is an America where the unborn may legitimately be killed without legal restriction, even by the grisly practice of partial-birth abortion. It is an America where a baby who survives abortion is not even entitled to comfort care as she dies on a stainless steel table or in a soiled linen bin. It is a nation in which some members of the human family are regarded as inferior and others superior in fundamental dignity and rights. In Obama's America, public policy would make a mockery of the great constitutional principle of the equal protection of the law. In perhaps the most telling comment made by any candidate in either party in this election year, Senator Obama, when asked by Rick Warren when a baby gets human rights, replied: "that question is above my pay grade." It was a profoundly disingenuous answer: For even at a state senator's pay grade, Obama presumed to answer that question with blind certainty. His unspoken answer then, as now, is chilling: human beings have no rights until infancy - and if they are unwanted survivors of attempted abortions, not even then.

In the end, the efforts of Obama's apologists to depict their man as the true pro-life candidate that Catholics and Evangelicals may and even should vote for, doesn't even amount to a nice try. Voting for the most extreme pro-abortion political candidate in American history is not the way to save unborn babies.

Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. He is a member of the President's Council on Bioethics and previously served on the United States Commission on Civil Rights. He sits on the editorial board of Public Discourse.

Copyright 2008 The Witherspoon Institute. All rights reserved.

The point is not that BHO is a Muslim. The point is his background and long term relations.Islamic aggression represents America's strategic enemy; Obama's many insalubrious connections raise grave doubts about his fitness to serve as America's commander-in-chief.We are still allowed to ask questions,although not on many college campuses.
See Pipes article- Would Obama Pass a Standard Security Clearance?
By Daniel Pipes

To Gregory Peterson -- I usually agree with your points, so keep them coming, but let me explain my experience with "white" Hispanic voters. In Miami, where I lived until recently, there were MANY in the Latin community who count themselves white. (I use "Latin" because that is usually how that community referred to itself in Miami, and I recognize that there is vehement disagreement among some about the use of the term "Latin" or "Latino/a" versus "Hispanic".) This is unrelated to the history from your area. In Miami, the Latin community is made up of people from all over Latin, Central, and South America and the Carribean. Many of them are descended (some recently) from Europeans. These folks are considered white in the same way that Europeans are and in the same way that other people in this country who are descended from Europeans are considered to be white. It doesn't make them any less Hispanic, a term which is comprised of both racial and cultural aspects. There is a designation on census forms, and you see it also in polling data, for "non-hispanic white." In Miami, "non-Hispanic whites," who are referred to in Miami as "Anglos," are thus distinguished from Hispanic whites. There are also Black Hispanics (a result of the spread of the slave trade), Asian Hispanics (particularly from Brazil, where there is a huge Japanese-Brazilian community, some of whom have moved to Miami where they are I guess Japanese Brazilian Americans), and Jewish Hispanics (in part as a result of the exodus of Jews from Europe fleeing Hitler). All of these groups (and more -- African Americans, the Carribean community, Asian Americans, Muslims, Jews, GLBT) are represented in Miami, and though there are problems, it can also be an exciting place. America is a great country! Oh, and BTW, the Latin community in Miami is overwhelmingly Republican, although that is changing with the younger generation, particularly in the Cuban community.

And, almost 20% of white evangelicals believe Obama is a Muslim? That's outrageous. How can the evangelical community hope to have any respect if a significant portion can't get even basic facts correct? Colin Powell's statement was one of the most moving things I've heard in a long time. And the picture he talked about, of the mother of a fallen Muslim-American soldier gripping his headstone was overwhelming. http://www.newyorker.com/online/2008/09/29/slideshow_080929_platon?slide=16#showHeader

Of course we should get the facts straight, but more importantly, it DOESN'T MATTER if Obama WERE a Muslim! "Muslim" is not a slur.

Anyone can say "I'm Christian." It's not about going to church. A Christian is a follower of Christ - we have a personal relationship with Him - He is most important - He is everything because we love Him dearly. We think, act, react as He would because the Holy Spirit indwells. Jesus would never support anyone who insists that killing the unborn is OK. Obama can say he is Christian - he's not - his actions and words are clear. He said the Bible isn't relevant in gov't, he supports gay marriage, he mocked the Bible in a speech 4 yrs ago, and to say it's illegal/wrong to kill infants outside the womb, but it's OK to kill them inside?! May God have mercy on us! Jesus called those religious folks hypocrites! "My rights" - entitlement trumps innocent, voiceless human life! Read your Bible: God doesn't tolerate killing the innocent & immorality. Any wonder America is crumbling!? Pray for direction. (see bornalivetruth.org)

Of course it does matter that Obama, or anyone else is a Muslim, if they were going to lead the most powerful nation on earth. The fact remains, that since Jesus Christ has clearly stated in the Bible, that He, and He ALONE is THE WAY and THE TRUTH, and THE LIFE, He did so to exclude everyone else. This means that ALL other "faiths" and "religions" are false, and therefore in direct opposition to Jesus, and has their origin in hell. Obama has very clearly said that he will not "demonize" Islam, and is very pro Islam and everything liberal, which is clearly against the Teachings that really matter, the Holy Bible. Christians should stand up for the Truth, and stop pandering to the demonic hatered that is being spread by the likes of Obama, Powell, Winfrey, who hate Christianity!

I've been in a 'cult' in which whatever the leader said must be true. No matter how much you knew it was wrong - it had to be true. I don't think Sen. Obama was in a cult but BLT is not Christian theology. To be in a church and not recognize these type of teachings (doctrine) as being antithetical is a matter of pride. BLT sounds like it is putting race before faith. As a Christian we must earnestly contend for the faith. The word is for correct as well. We must separate ourselves from such antithetical views (regardless of race).
Sen. Obama speaks loudly in his view towards abortion. He is the most liberal Senator in the Senate. He is totally for something that annihilates 1,200 african ameircan babies daily. They had choices - why must they be trampled over in the name of rights.
He is for everything antithetical to sound Christian teachings.
Unfortunately, he has shown little fruit.

The issue is not what faith is Obama, but the way he deals with it. He has been less than forthright in explaining to the public his faith and his relationship to his former pastor. Seems like he prefers whatever faith or position that helps his political standing. A good example is the statements made by his former pastor were made years ago, and now after they have been made public, and after attempts to try to deny or brush them aside, Obama did what a good politician would do: make the issue go away.

Powell has it right. I loved his comment about the mother at the gravesite of her son. He was a Muslim who died for his country after the 911 mess.

ONE NATION UNDER GOD! We may be worshiping the right God, but others have the right in this country to worship theirs.

Obama talks about unity, McCain talks about separation. Lets get back to the ONE NATION UNDER GOD part!

Evangelical for Obama

Howard, you are one confused Christian if you think that Obama is a strong Christian. I don't know any strong Christians that believe in killing babies for any reason at any time. Did you hear about the Freedom of Choice Act that Obama wants to pass? Well, I guess he will be judged in the end by the True Judge. God is the only one who truly knows Obama's heart, but what I have seen so far hasn't proved his beliefs to me.

Thank you, Christian. Many Hispanic people I know identify as "Spanish," because the area was New Spain when their ancestors settled the area. My area was only a distant part of "Mexico" for a few years. That doesn't mean, however, that they identify as "white," Hispanic or otherwise, as "white" is associated with "Anglo," something they're not.

Official statistics forms, however, don't usually have a check off box for "Spanish." For that matter, they don't have one for "Norwegian" either. After all, my ancestors did not come from Whiteland to become "White-Americans." I was raised in the rural Great Plains, with a much Americanized "Norwegian" ethnic identity, not a "White" racial identity. And, life has added Hispanic and German and Black and Swedish and Jewish and English and Gay to Norwegian in the last couple of generations...la gente cosmica?

Speaking of race.

"La Raza," the Race, is from José Vasconcelos 1925 book, La Raza Cosmica, and doesn't really refer to "race," like in "white" race, but of an intermixture of Mexican/Native/everyone else into a new identity concept of a peoples...sort of an Hispanic "meta-race?" If I may coin a new word...oops, I didn't. Don't you love search engines?

The Brazilian sociologist, Gilberto Freyre, beat me to "meta-race" by a half century or so. So...we have long had Vasconcelos' "Cosmic Race," and Freyre's "Meta-Race" concepts nibbling away at "whiteness."

"Anglo" use to be the default label here for people who weren't "Spanish" or "Indian." Except for a few years abroad while in the military, I'm lived mostly here as an adult. So a Black or Asian person would be, like my Norwegian self, also an Anglo. Now, however, Anglo, at least in the more urban areas, is more limited to non-Hispanics of European descent.

I've read somewhere that in pre-war Hawaii, the default category for not-native, not-white, not-Asian, was "Puerto Rican."

My sister's father in law has interesting stories about being a not-white, not-Black soldier in Jim Crow land.

Whiteness theory and identity theory are so interesting, aren't they?

In truth, I would prefer not to know the religion of a candidate.
I would see no reason for an American not to vote for a Muslim, or anyone else...Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Agnostic, inchoately "Spiritual"....

I would happily vote for a Muslim who leans my way on civil rights issues, as they would probably be closer to what I would want on other issues as well.

However, I'm guessing that conservative Muslims are probably about as likely to with me on Gay civil rights issues as conservative Christians...so I would unlikely vote for someone, regardless of religion, if they talk like a Republican...and I use to be a Republican. My family had been solidly Republican since Lincoln. My grandfather was an elected GOP officeholder in the 1890s. But then, the GOP became the states' rights party, which is definitely not, in no way, the party of Lincoln.

I think Obama is too conservative on civil rights issues, but I'm voting for him anyway. I'm comfortable choosing a lesser evil in an imperfect world. He and Biden seem teachable, if nothing else, unlike McCain and Palin. I don't care about any of the candidate's religion, or lack of it...or at least, to be honest, I don't want to have to care.

Whether Obama is a muslim or not,I´m not convinced he is not,I do know he isnt a Christian,Knowing how he mocked Leviticus and the sermon on the mount,and his stances on abortion which God hates through and through,There is no way in denying that!I´m shocked how ignorant Christians are! to think it shouldnt matter if the president is Christian or muslim,People should read Matthew 10 :34-35 and 12:30/Luc 11:23 but most of all 1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son,Muslims deny the Son! The real question is then why did he lie!!

The "church" that O'bama attended for 20 years is not a Christian church. They preach "black liberation theology", not Jesus Christ and him crucified. So it would be easy for a black muslim to stay in that "church". If you know anything about the Nation of Islam, they are not generally accepted by traditionaly Islam, nor do they live a traditional Islam. Their movement came from a white Jehova Witness named Wallace Fard, who discipled Elijah Poole, and was followed by Farrahkan. Do I believe that O'bama is a Muslim, no but given everything that he says he believes and judging the fruit thereof, he is not a Christian either.

I don't believe Sen. Obama is a Muslim . I really don't believe he has truly shown any signs of a true christian. Being nice and being able to uphold under 'character' attacks does past the litmus test. His views on abortion and saame sex marriage are totally antithetical. I do pray fo rhis salvation. We can't get caught up in 'sweet talk.' Look at the issues.

Unfortunately, "evangelicals" have succumbed to be used to question a christian brother's faith, calling Obama a Muslim. Who are we to question the salvation of Obama who has through the cable media has repeated his confession of the saving power of our Lord Jesus Christ.If we disagree with his political view dare we go to the extent of questioning his salvation and confession? Those of us who question his faith, have not been obedient to the Lord in so doing.If we think he is a Muslim are we then not commanded by our Lord to share the word with him? How many of those who question that Obama is a Muslim have taken it upon himself or herself to witness to Obama of the saving knowledge and power of our Lord?

No matter whether Obama is Muslim/Christian. His view about some of the Bible is ridiculous for any Christian to have. He said, and I quote, "The surmon on the mount was one of the most dangerous speeches ever made". If you don't believe me go onto youtube and look up Obama on the Bible or religion... you will find it.

What we as Christians need to do is ask God how we should vote. No where in the Bible or our Constitution does it state separation of church and state... it is an idea created by people who don't want to be "bothered" by believers. Search the Bible about issues of this election, it will give you answers as to who/how to vote.

Dare I step into this Obama love fest and make a small point? His religious faith, either Muslim or Christian, doesn't seem to affect him at all. Both his associations and his stance on abortion would make him a poor disciple of either. His consistant championing of "choice", up to and including a full term live birth abortion, makes me not want to be associated with any faith he identifies with. Our God who breathes life into us can not bless a nation that holds it's most vunerable ones so carelessly. Wake up America, God takes His little ones VERY seriously, and those who don't , do so at their own peril.


I don't think Sen. Obama is a Muslim. He might be trying to become a Christian. We have to discern truth from error. He supports abortion and same sex marriage. We need to pray for him.

There is a link to MEMRI on the accuracy in media website that made some interesting comments.


You can draw your own conclusion. We need to pray.

It is an incredible indictment on the Evangelical Church that 1 in 5 believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim. This distortion of thinking has permeated in many Christian circles. Its second cousin is believing that God is an eternal sweetheart who gives indiscriminately to his followers and rebukes and dismisses all others. The teaching that God is a big multi level marketing consortium that dispenses multiple blessings to those who give money to the cause (prosperity teaching) is distorted and self serving. Unfortunately many evangelicals don't study or investigate under the guidance of the Holy Spirit thus they are prime victims of right wing brainwashing. Right wing Christians also support robo calls that state that Senator Obama doesn't think violent criminals
should go to jail (Obamas website vehemently denies this). Why do Christians do this? Partly because they don't trust God and the Holy Spirit to lead,guide and protect. They need to use power and influence techniques to assist a sleeping God. I am ashamed to be part of this family. I am sure the Saviour is disgraced and embarrassed by the conduct of His people. Racism is no stranger to the Church also..what a mess were in.

Obama has an interesting perspective on the Bible, for a "christian." On YouTube you can see him mocking it.

Regarding "evangelicals" this is a self-identified classification. Put another way, if you consider yourself to be an evangelical, then polls count you as such. It's like people who think they can pick & choose what they like in the Bible, and still call themselves "christians." I never take such designations seriously.

Regarding muslims, it's swell that Colin Powell thinks Islam is innocuous. Compare the lives of Mohammed and Jesus (on Wikipedia or Encyclopedia Brittanica or any source you wish) and you may come to a different conclusion. Ask yourself WWMD (What Would Mohammed Do?) in a situation and look at his life. Then let the blood flow.

I'm sure Colin Powell doesn't care, he can now get invited to all the best cocktail parties and paid speaking functions. As a retired officer, I met careerists like him all the time and the leadership of such "what's in it for me" types is uninspiring, at best. He's a very good political weathervane, though, so if you want to know which way the wind is prevailing, feel free to quote him any time.

Queation for Christian Lawyer: On what census forms is there a category called "non-hispanic white"? I interview people for the American Community Survey, the only census survey mandated by congress and the survey from which most of the statistics cited in the media come. There is no category of "non-hispanic white" in the race section of the ACS form. In fact, many hispanics have a problem identifying themselves as "white" and choose "some other race" with "hispanic" written in.

Race and ethnicity are not the same thing, although most of us tend to confuse the two. The census bureau considers "hispanic" an ethnicity; the categories probably come from sociologists or anthropologists. I suspect that Gregory Peterson's suggestion that categorising hispanics as "white" does date back to the 1840s.

Colin Powell is incorrect. Obama hasn’t “always been a Christian” and neither is he now.

Obama calls himself “a committed Christian” yet his version of Christianity isn’t Biblically based. In a newspaper interview, he said he doesn’t believe in eternal judgment. If there were no eternal judgment for sin, Jesus Christ wouldn’t have had to come down to earth to die on a cross. Obama doesn’t know if he’s going to heaven. Obama questions himself in internal discourse yet calls that prayer. Obama takes issue with Jesus’ words in John 14:6 where Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by Me.”

Last year the highly esteemed Rev. D. James Kennedy closed his sermon on John 14:1-7 with this: “And let me add this. If you go out of here saying you don’t like that text (John 14:6), that is your privilege. But do not call yourself a Christian. You are calling Christ a liar.”

i honestly dont understand a one of you who support obama. you're so taken by the press, you're so taken by hollywood & its popular vote. the man has put everything out there & yet you bodly, adamently follow him anyway. how can u vote the bible & support this man? fruit is the fact that he was raised muslim. fruit is his friendships with terrorists, fruit is recognizing that he wrote in 3 of his autobiographies that he'll defend the muslims no matter what. dont be deceived, you are in the world but not of it. may god once again make us the the Salt & Light of the EArth. thats not criticism thats truth. stand up against abortion, against gay marriages. he's liberal not a conservative democrat. god help us...

While Senator Obama is no Muslim, he does not seem to have a high regard for the Bible either, judging from his characterisation of Romans 1 as an “obscure passage”. Romans 1 was written by Christianity’s greatest theologian of all times, the Apostle Paul. It speaks about God’s work of creation being self-evident and of the dire results (homosexuality etc.) of not honoring Him as Creator. Followers of Jesus Christ should not – and cannot- disregard what the Bible clearly teaches. Moreover, his views on abortion are clearly anti-Christian.

Ruth, there are two questions. The racial one, where you say White, Black, Asian, Native American, Other, and the ethnic one. Where Hispanic is located. Of course since the 2000 census there is also the ability to answer yes to more than one to become multi-racial as about 2 percent of the US consider themselves.

Recently in an interview with George Stephanopalous, Barak made a slip of the tongue when he stated, "My Muslim faith has brought me to this point". George then corrected him and said, "Don't you mean your christian faith?" " Oh, yes George." Whether Muslim or not, I think the deeper and more prevailing issue is his stand on abortion. When the Christian community endorses a candidate that says "my first act in office will be to sign into law . . ." a bill which is so egregious in it's as to permit partial birth abortions and promote infanticide, then the Christian community has been duped. I have read the previous comments and find them very disturbing. Barak's plan for our government is not liberating to those who are poor, and as a part black man, his welfare (redistribution of wealth to the needy) is the same as the adage, "give a man and fish and he will eat a meal, teach him to fish and he will be self sustaining." Barak's plan or redistribution is bondage for those who consider themselves repressed. Christ didn't teach about a free hand-out program, he taught about taking care of widows and orphans (by families and the church, not the government).

I would prefer that race not be an issue at all. Most people have intermarried so much that there is no such thing as a truly "pure" race. To talk of race any more really is racist anyway. However, we do have to talk about religion because there is a concern about whether some relgions can exist within the framework of a democracy. That's why there people question the Islam. Its traditions and history have not historically supported free speech and independent action. Even now, we see what's happening in Britain and other parts of Europe and you have to ask "Is this really what we want here?" Everywhere that Muslim influence increases seems to go hand-in-hand with sharia law and that includes a decrease of civil rights and traditional American civil rights. That's something to think about.

you tell me why, if a man is not a muslim but Christian why he would disrespect our flag by turning his back to it, not place his hand over his heart, not reciting the pledege of allegiance, and on top of that take his oath using the koran. This is evidence enough to me that he doesn't follow Jesus. Yes, he has a Constitutional right to run for President as I have a right to not vote for him because he's muslim.

In Christian Love
Jim Howell

interesting! but I really don't care what religion, race, gender, etc.our President is but its more about where do they stand on the real issues. Can't vote for a pro-abortion, Marxist for US President! BTW, at 50% black and referring to himself as black, I can't understand why Obama doesn't see abortion as oppression of the same kind as slavery.

Ruth, Hispanics can be of any race. This has nothing to do with laws passed in the American West in the 1840s. This has to do with European emmigration (for better or worse) to all parts of the Western Hemisphere, which means that my Anglo-Scots ancestors who migrated to the United States and my friend's Anglo-Scots ancestors who migrated to Cuba all produced descendants who are "White" whether we are Non-Hispanic as I am or Hispanic as my Cuban-born friend is. Same would be true for Spanish, Irish, Italian, German, French, Scandinavian, Russian, Portuguese, and other European ancestors. (I'm not suggesting that cultural and racial prejudices that kept these European-descended groups generally separate from the slave and native populations was a good thing, but it is what happened.)

Below is information about what the Census Bureau counts.

Here is a South Florida Sun Sentinel article from 2006 discussing these categories from a Census Bureau Report: An excerpt is below.

"The non-Hispanic white population in Broward [Ft. Lauderdale area], which was 58.3 percent as recently as 2000, is now 49.9 percent, a slip of more than 8 percentage points in just five years, according to a U.S. Census Bureau report released today. That's a dramatic change from 1990, when three out of four Broward residents were non-Hispanic whites. The number of minority residents in the county is expected to reach about 63 percent by 2030, according to independent estimates by state officials. The total county population is about 1.8 million. Demographers attribute the unprecedented shift to the exploding Caribbean and Latin American populations. [snip] Since 2001, more black people have come to Broward each year than to any other county in the United States, according to the census, increasing the county's black population by almost 85,000 people between 2000 and 2005. The increase would overflow Dolphin Stadium. The number of blacks in Broward rose to 442,355 in 2005 from 357,759 in 2000, while the number of white Hispanics jumped to 364,121 from 259,051."

Here's current information from the Census Bureau: "The federal government treats Hispanic origin and race as separate and distinct concepts. In surveys and censuses, separate questions are asked on Hispanic origin and race. The question on Hispanic origin asks respondents if they are Spanish, Hispanic or Latino. Starting with Census 2000, the question on race asked respondents to report the race or races they consider themselves to be. Thus, Hispanics may be of any race. (See U.S. Census Bureau Guidance on the Presentation and Comparison of Race and Hispanic Origin Data .)" The rest of that Census Bureau press release can be found here: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/012463.html

One Nation Under God! Does not mean any God. And Christian means adhearing to certain principals that the WORD of GOD upholds. Like not on the side of abortion. We need to see that GOD says see him first and his rightousness. Study this. It means that our judges make the laws in this land under God. If we allow such liberal judges. Pay attention. If we allow things to come into place and "change" we wont be one nation under GOD and this wonderful land of opportunity wont be blessed as we have been now. Dont call yourself a christian if you are not going to stand on God's principals and his basics. Its not about race, its not about gendor, its about voting rightous and what God would have. That's the bottom line.Look at this election. Look at the division and strife it has caused in the world over religion and in many churches. If he is not a muslim, I have not heard him say that. God is love not strife! Satan comes to kill steal and detroy! Revelation....pay attention ...... study and know what is truth. Being a Christian means to walk in love, but love pays attention!

God says take care of your neighbor.Is our neighbor not Mexico? Mexico is our closes neighbor , and yet we are building a fence or wall to keep them out. But yet we go all the way around the world to help these and our neibor is right here. Open your eyes people.

Colin Powell is incorrect. Obama hasn’t “always been a Christian” and neither is he now.

Obama calls himself “a committed Christian” yet his version of Christianity isn’t Biblically based. In a newspaper interview, he said he doesn’t believe in eternal judgment. If there were no eternal judgment for sin, Jesus Christ wouldn’t have had to come down to earth to die on a cross. Obama doesn’t know if he’s going to heaven. Obama questions himself in internal discourse yet calls that prayer. Obama takes issue with Jesus’ words in John 14:6 where Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by Me.”

Last year the highly esteemed Rev. D. James Kennedy closed his sermon on John 14:1-7 with this: “And let me add this. If you go out of here saying you don’t like that text (John 14:6), that is your privilege. But do not call yourself a Christian. You are calling Christ a liar.”