Recent Obama on Islam

Obama Turban
Obama Turban

I have not heard alot from the MSM about the Compassion Forum (the brainchild of Faith in Public Life) which aired Sunday on CNN.

 

I found these words by Eboo Patel from a collaborative of Newsweek and the Washington Post interesting:

 

Obama (finally!) discussed his positive experience with Islam in Indonesia. He described it as a tolerant faith which lived comfortably with other religions, in a society where women had freedom and dignity. He concluded by saying that it was clear to him that Islam, like other religious traditions, had much to offer the modern world.

 

Finally, according to Obama:  America is a Christian nation, a Jewish nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, a Muslim nation, an atheist nation, etc.

 

Tags:
This also appears in:

Next Posts

Previous Posts

Comments

Sheri
He described it as a tolerant faith which lived comfortably with other religions, in a society where women had freedom and dignity.

Islam actually isn't that different from Judaism. While we are at odds on prophets and sacred texts, our laws are almost identical. Islam has an element of supercessionism that breeds some real nastiness, but the same could be said of Christianity, which also has a bloody history. Even Judaism has its Jewchbags, and we have no replacement theology.

There are between 0.7 and 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. They're not all running around in explosive vests. Like the members of any other religious group, most are just normal people living boring old ordinary lives with a bit of prayer thrown in.

Islam is the religion of both the suicide bombers and the guys I worked tech support with. Judaism is my religion as well as that of some real nutjuobs in Jerusalem. Christianity is your religion as well as the religion of Eric Robert Rudolph and the pope who celebrated Hitler's birthday. Our faiths are bigger than us. Obama's positive experience with Islam is no less valid than our negative experience with it.
Toe-Knee
I've been following the discussions on islam and what it means to it's followers. And it's interesting that it's the fastest growing religion on earth currently and despite it's supposed prejudices women are converting just as fast as men are. One thing people should remember is that Islam has many sects just as Christianity does. Just as a Catholic is not the same as a Baptist, is not the same as an Amish, is not the same as a Mormon, so is a Shiite different from a Sunni. Most of the traditions that force women to wear certain clothes are actually elements of the society and laws of the country rather than the religious tenants. Though there are certainly fundamentalist sects that force a dress code, just as there are fundamentalist Christian sects that do the same.

So, I think what he said is quite true, Muslims are generally quite tolerant of other religions and respectful of women just as Christians are... generally.
Christianity in the Raw
[this is good]
Your assumption seems to be that America is a "Christian" nation. No, its not. There is freedom to be any religion you wanna be(or to have no religion at all), including Muslims, as long as they respect the Constitution. Check out Washington's letter to Tripoli....
Chezz - C'Tack!
It would seem many make that assumption, plus they would like it to be a Christian nation.

It is so nice to see three people talking sense in regards to this issue.

Whatever people may say about Obama, one thing is true, he will speak honestly and confront issues of his past/present.
Jim Phelan

I don't recall Washington's letter to Tripoli a discussant of Islam.

If, from the get go, the government was supposed to be divorced from any one religion, why does it continue to be front burner in politics?

Finally, the Treaty of Tripoli was brillant, as Washington himself, since it

"declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries"

This is why we don't act like N and S Ireland and other countries plagued by wars over religion.

Christianity in the Raw
Hi Jim. Washington's letter basically allied North African/Muslim Tripoli that America was in no sense a Christian nation. The government's role as set by the Constitution is to make sure government stays out of endorsing religion -- the reason why we are not like Norther Ireland is because the gov't doesn't enforce religious orthodoxy, Christian or otherwise. May Liberals and Progressives have swung to the opposite extreme, believing the Constitution endorses a freedom from religion. This is an attempt to use the government to enforce a secular orthodox, and is as musch a violation of the Constitution as gov't endorsing a particular religious group.

Religion continues to be on the front burner because, frankly, of people like you, Jim -- self-styled "cultural warriors," ideologues from both the Right and the Left. People will always try to subvert religion to their own agendas, purposes, and ends to achieve their will-to-power, and this is the battle we are witnessing now in contemporary American politics as both the Republicans and the Democrats trot out Buddy Jesus and their versions of civic Christianity...
Jim Phelan

"trot out Buddy Jesus" - LOL!!!! Yup, right on the ole' donkey ass -- "Hosanna on the highest!"

Chezz - C'Tack!

Many Liberals and Progressives have swung to the opposite extreme, believing the Constitution endorses a freedom from religion. This is an attempt to use the government to enforce a secular orthodox, and is as musch a violation of the Constitution as gov't endorsing a particular religious group.

Yes I agree with you. I actually believe there should be a middle approach. From an outsider looking in, there appears to be a clash between religion especially Christianity and people who are upset that they appear to be having religion virtually forced upon them

Please excuse my ignorance and I shall plead "Aussie ignorance" as I cannot plead any of your amendments :)


What do you mean by: Constitution endorses a freedom from religion.

Are you able to elaborate what that would mean for your country. Is it indicating no religion at all or that religion is kept very much in the background away from all secular institutions i.e public schools, military etc.

Thanks friend.

Christianity in the Raw
Hi Chezz! Many radical secularist/modernists believe the Constitution to guarantee a public square freed from religious influence, thereby privatizing and marginalizing those with religious faith. This is not the case -- the Constitution clearly gives people the right to practice their religion, or lack thereof, any way they want. The government is forbidden to establish any one religion and thus involve governmental power in resolving religious disputes.

When the ACLU protests that the Nativity Scene or a monument of The Ten Commandments should not be on Federal Government property, they are 100% correct. When they claim that a politician's position on abortion cannot be informed by the politician's faith, they are way outta line. Religious faith can inform politics. As long as the politician is acting in accordance to parliamentary and Constitutional guidelines, his freedom of religion should be respected, just as those who would support abortion should be respected.

This will provoke conflict, of course, but the Constitution has all kinds of checks and balances to make sure there is a peaceful and democratic resolution to these different issues. Differences of opinion and conflict like the above is actually good for the body politic and hints that the system is healthy. May the best idea win the day in Congress, in the executive branch, and in the Judicial branch of the American government.

Hope this clarifies my position a little better....

G'day!
Chezz - C'Tack!
G'day? Talking like a true Aussie now - Good onya!

Yes that certainly has cleared it up for me. If I was in the States living that is what I would expect a middle path. Naturally a politician's stance would be partly based on his/her religious beliefs and to exclude that factor would be wrong.

So yes I am happy with your train of thought on the matter. That would be how it would be here in Australia. Nice and laid back - just the way I like it.

Hoo roo!

Post a comment

Already a Vox member? Sign in

You will be asked to join Vox to post this comment.