In September of 2010, when specifically asked, President Obama said he is a "Christian by choice" and that his decision was influenced by gospel teachings about salvation and the importance of loving one another.
His mother and the grandparents who helped raised him weren't regular churchgoers, Obama told the crowd. He became a Christian later in life because of the religion's basic principles, he said.
"It was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead," Obama said. "Being my brother's and sister's keeper. Treating others as they would treat me."
Obama also spoke of the doctrine of salvation and of Jesus Christ "dying for my sins," a set of beliefs many Christians consider fundamental to the profession of faith. He later made some controversial statements about "collective salvation," something that is not Biblical but of man.
This brings me to the recent secularization of the military. It seems interesting to me that a President who claims to be a Christian would work so hard to remove Christianity from the military. His Defense Department has issued regulations putting limits on what chaplains can do concerning sharing faith and that has made sharing one's faith an offense which could bring on a court martial. Why would a Christian President do that?
George W. Bush is a Christian man who initiated several faith-based programs during his Presidency. President Obama says he's a Christian yet he's doing away with the practice of Christianity in the military. Something just doesn't seem right about it.
So serious is the movement by the military to limit or do away with Christianity that they consulted a devout atheist to assist in writing the new regulations. Michael (Mikey) Weinstein, atheist and anti-religion activist and founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, has been meeting with Pentagon officials, Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, and Joe Wilson, a former United States Ambassador.
That Mikey Weinstein is included in such discussions is vexing to many conservatives, as he recently penned an opinion piece on the subject in which he referred to "fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates" and was quoted in the Washington Post as saying that "This is a national security threat. What is happening is spiritual rape. And what the Pentagon needs to understand is that it is sedition and treason. It should be punished."
Really? Sedition and treason? For sharing the word of God? The same God mentioned in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution? And Weinstein is who the Obama administration chooses to aid them in this quest? Is it any wonder that many people feel this is simply one more assault on Christianity by the Obama administration?
It's not my place to judge the President. Only he and God know his true beliefs. But since his initial campaign days I have said it's more important to watch what Obama does than to listen to his words. The two are often completely opposite. And his adoring followers seem to live by the philosophy of "Let's just believe whatever he said last." Even when he contradicts himself or lies about something he said earlier, they believe his last statements. That type of blind allegiance is a scary thing.
Gosh Glen, judging by your errors & misstatements, I guess you should stick to law enforcement, not Constitutional law interpretation. You raise the typical right-wing red herring about Obama's religious orientation (I guess you're shying away from making the 'secret Muslim' canard directly) but by implying he's at war with 'Christians' or 'Christianity' you make a similar charge by implication. Naturally, what you don't say (nor do those critics whose bread & butter is generated by fear-mongering about Mikey Weinstein's activities, and which, by benefit of doubt, and what you may just be profoundly ignorant of) is that Mikey has demanded the military adhere to the 1st Amendment and protect those serving under domineering seniors whose agenda is Christian Domionism (for whom even mainstream Protestants & Catholics are not sufficiently "Christian") who've been allowed to permeate the U.S. military with their 'End Times' eschatology (and you want 'em in charge of nukes???) as a consequence of which >95% of the MRFF's clients are Christians of some stripe or hue. In fact, judging by the number of endorsements of MRFF’s actions by mainstream Christians of all kinds (not to mention others persecuted by Domionists; Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists) the only aggrieved parties are those whose agenda is domination of the military’s religious activates to the exclusion of all others, despite the Constitution’s clear prohibition of mandatory exercise of a ‘state religion’. Actually, what’s really scary in your essay is your evident ignorance of both the facts of Mikey Weinstein & the MRFF’s actions and the Constitution upon which they’re based.
ReplyDeleteIt would be my guess that you are also an atheist...?
DeletePick the best answer:
DeleteA) True
B) False
C) True & Unrelated. X
D) False & Unrelated.
As I suspected. Definitely related. Mikey Weinstein is a hateful man who degrades Christians at every opportunity. I actually feel sorry for him. He'll either triumph in his fight or die a very unhappy man. But it looks like he has work to do:
DeleteIn October 6, 2005, Weinstein sued the United States Air Force for failing to prevent religious proselytizing in the U.S. Air Force. U.S. District Judge James A. Parker dismissed the case of Weinstein v. U.S. Air Force and wrote:[10]
No Plaintiff claims to have personally experienced any of the things described under 'Factual Allegations'... while at the Academy or after leaving the Academy. The only fair reading of Plaintiffs’ factual allegations limits them to practices and events at the Academy and policies as they affect persons, other than Plaintiffs, at the Academy...Not a single Plaintiff has alleged any personal factual situation that has allegedly impinged on that Plaintiff’s constitutional rights since the Plaintiff left the Academy.