caught somewhere between real life, simple faith, & raw emotion
Why Would the President Say That?
This week president Obama has been overseas for the G-20 summit. I’ve been trying to find details on what’s actually happening or what’s he’s saying. There hasn’t been much analysis in the media about this. Reports have been general at best. Finally, I heard a report about something he said that really bothered me.
While giving a press conference in Turkey he said in regard to America:
“We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.”
Why would he say this–especially during Easter week? Something about this really rubbed me wrong and it’s not because I am a Christian, or that the Declaration of Independence (what our whole Constitution is based on) has blatant references to God based on the Judaeo-Christian values of the Founders, or that I don’t understand what he was trying to say with the intent of his words. In light of the context of many other things that he has said while on this trip, I find it a little unnerving.
It’s as if he’s been living the lyrics if Nirvana’s All Apologies song:
I’ll take all the blame
I’ll proceed from shame
Sunburn with freezer burn
Choking on the ashes of her enemy
That seems to be the sentiment of his words on this world tour. I just don’t think it’s stately or smart in the context of a trip like this to be communicating the idea like America is evil, weak, and guilty, especially coming from its preeminent leader. Is that the message we want to send? It does not engender trust, respect, or honor for the future going forward.
I’m all for diplomacy. I’m all for building bridges. But not at the expense of our security or future. Instead of emphasizing the negative, how about a focus on the positive? Instead of saying what we are not, how about saying what we are? Something like this:
“We are a nation of diverse people: Jews, Muslims, Christians, and more. Those with faith, and those without. But we are all committed to building bridges and creating solutions…”
Maybe this is a better sentiment to come from. I think that would accomplish his intentions even better. It’s nice, neutral, and inclusive.
Let me say, I don’t believe America was, is, or should be a theocracy. Although we may not officially be a Christian nation, we are still proportionately a nation of Christians (regardless of what Newsweek’s recent article The End of Christian America hopes for). I think this was just a poor choice of words from our President. Although I believe it was meant to be inclusionary, it was in fact exclusionary. After watching the press conference, I just don’t think it worked.
Am I being picky? Maybe. But he is the President, after all.
With my approach, I think everyone can be happy.
[you can watch the clip for yourself below]
15 comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
No worries…
WOW! My apologies to all for igniting a firestorm with my previous comments. i thought by adding a “disclaimer” that i was clarifying that my comment about the “red guy with horns on his head and a pointed tail between his legs” was said as a joke. I sincerely do apologize if i did not communicate this clearly.
I DO NOT BELIEVE OBAMA IS THE ANTI-CHRIST. IN FULL DISCLOSURE, I BELIEVE SAYING SUCH WOULD BE INCREDIBLY FOOLISH.
My only intent was to make a point of how incredibly gifted obama is in his speaking and how he is soooo darn convincing, even if what comes out is complete garbage. This is where i made my comparison to Satan because Satan does a pretty good job selling us lies all the day long.
TO JASON: SORRY BRO! DIDN’T MEAN TO STIR THE POT LIKE THIS AND PERHAPS TARNISH WHAT YOU’RE DOING HERE. HOPE YOU CAN FIND IT IN YOU NOT TO ADD ME TO YOUR HATE LIST! HAHA! FORGIVE ME?
TO CHRISTOPHER LEE AKA DRAGON MANAGEMENT: SORRY FOR NOT BEING MORE CLEAR. I SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE CAREFUL WITH MY WORDS. HOPE I DIDN’T OFFEND YOU TOO BAD. FORGIVE ME? (AS A SIDE NOTE, A CLOSE FRIEND OF MINE WOULD GLADLY GIVE YOU A DEAL ON YOUR TAT)
TO EVERYONE ELSE: BE SLOW TO SPEAK AND QUICK TO LISTEN! JAMES 1:19-27
meeks.
I have to agree with DM on point #5. I think that his statememnt could have been phrased differently but I understood the point he was trying to make. A huge protion of the Muslim world thinks that we have begun a “crusade” against them but he was trying to let them know we are not a christian nation (which is true).
As for his gaff let’s try to remember the last 8 years worth of wonderful quotes.
I also agree with DM on the statements by meeks is what makes christians look like fanatics and people who are out of touch with reality. Most free thinking people would consider those statement those of a madman. I am sorry but I really have no patience with religious fanatics That spout off the bible like it is the be all end all of reality. Want to start up a new topic of discussion lets alk about Deuteromity and talk about how the bible says that we should stone our children to death for not listening.
Now we’re gettin’ somewhere!
1. Many props on the future tattoo featuring lyrics I wrote. I don’t even have that! Send my that pic when it’s done so I can post it to my collection.
2. Agreed on Wikipedia
3. I understand you weren’t saying I was comparing Obama to the anti-christ. I just needed make that clarification for any visitors since my site is getting around 3,000-4,000 hits a day at the moment.
4. Understand on the “alias.” Just something to keep in mind when posting debate like this. Having been in the public arena (first from Strongarm and now with my book), aninomity is perceived as cowardice by the recipients. In fact, I often delete people who won’t use their real names.
FYI.
5. As for your assertion on Christian fundamentalists being a fairly recent development (I think that’s what you were saying). Not sure what you mean by that term. If you mean to describe people who believe in the actual resurrection of Jesus, the other miracles he performed, and a literal understanding and interpretation of the Bible, they have always been around.
Yes, first things first. This is fun banter, I agree. Thanks for being civil enough to have this type of discussion. I’m pretty sure this kind of dialogue is why people like you and I do this, right?
2. DM is just my handle. My name is Christopher Lee, and I live in Tampa. One of the reasons I try not to post my real name is that I teach high school, and they can be pretty handy with the ol’ Google search. So, in this case, my (former) anonymity is simply a way to keep nosy students at bay.
1. DM comes from the name of my fake company. I visited China a long time ago, and that trip had an important impact on me. (I actually had a Chinese scroll made for me–which will eventually be a tattoo on my back–which says “With every decision there is a condition, and in every choice, a price to pay.”) So, being one who studied, traveled in, and generally knows a lot about China, DM just seemed to be a fun way to express that.
3. There is a vigorous debate going on right now in academia about the usefulness of Wikipedia in survey courses, and I find the arguments for its use in said courses compelling. Here’s a good pro-Wikipedia article ( http://clioweb.org/2009/04/05/assigning-wikipedia-in-a-us-history-survey/ ) As far as I’m concerned (and I believe a good many historians would agree with me), Wikipedia is like any other encyclopedia ever published…it’s a good starting place but not a good source to cite. If my research ends at Wikipedia, either I didn’t need a lot of in-depth info or I’m lazy. On the other hand, it is convenient place to find quick (and relatively reliable) answers.
4. I did not suggest that you, Jason, were calling Obama the anti-Christ. I did say that the other commenter–Meeks–was saying as much in his comments.
5. I am suggesting that–as it pertains to the original post–that Obama’s comment, “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation,” is not so far off the mark in terms of founding documents. You are probably right that Obama could have phrased it better (or not used the phrase at all), and it is clear from evidence that Christians (in whatever form) have constituted a majority of the country’s population since its founding. BUT the Constitution and the Declaration are NOT built on Christian principles. It is not offensive to me to believe such a thing; it is simply inaccurate. My reading of the documents (and I would argue, the reading of most reputable historians) is that these documents were influenced by Enlightenment philosophes and deists rather than Christian fundamentalists (which didn’t even exist in the late 18th century). To put a finer point on it, the Declaration was heavily influenced by Locke (because of his ideas about natural rights), and the Constitution was heavily influenced by Montesquieu (separation of powers). True, all these people lived in Christian societies, but that does not necessarily mean that these documents are “Christian” or embody “Christian principles.”
Let me first say, all this dialogue is in the spirit of fun banter for me. Now, in no particular order:
1. I am honored that you are (or were) a Strongarm fan. But I am not sure I understand where the name “Dragon management” comes from. I think that was the question. Not where you as a person comes from. And if the name was inspired by Strongarm, I don’t remember using dragon, serpent, beast, leviathan, or any other ancient animal description in the lyrics. Is Dragon Management a company? Or are you the dragon and you are keeping yourself in check. All very confusing.
2. It is very humorous (and ironic) that you throw accusations someone else being “disengenuine” when you won’t even post your real name to your comments. I find that aninomity and courage are usually mutually exclusive.
3. Wikipedia is not always the most accurate source for information.
4. I also DO NOT consider (and was in NO WAY saying) Barack Obama to be the anti-christ. As anti-christs go (if you read where that term comes from in Revelation from the Bible), he scores very low.
5. I’m not sure what you are conceding or debating. Was America founded on Christian Principles or not? And why is that idea or phrase so offensive? Would it be better to say Jesus-type (or influenced) ideals? Would it be accurate to describe many of the Founder’s faith in this context?
You are being disingenuous, at best, when you claim to not compare Obama to the anti-Christ. And the whole shtick about “red guy with horns on his head and a pointed tail between his legs” isn’t a reference to the devil/Beelzebub? (Maybe I’m just missing the irony…)
As far as the not caring about a government’s policies because “he can only accomplish what GOD allows him to accomplish,” well, then, no one really has anything to offer you in terms of open-minded discussion about politics because it’s all kinda pointless, eh? But if that’s the case, then why be a part of a discussion about politics in the first place? Why comment on someone’s blog who very clearly has an interest (at least a cursory interest) in the subject?
This dragon manager came from the early to mid-1990s when he was a fan of Strongarm. Hope that’s good enough to be a part of the discussion.
A few things:
1. Saying that a majority of the Founders/Framers “claimed some sort of affiliation with…Christianity” does not equate with America being founded on “Christian” principles. Certainly the principles of 18th Protestant Christianity had an effect on the founding of the country, but that is a far cry from saying America was founded on Christian principles.
2. As the to the intent of the Declaration of Independence being clear, I think you are right. The intent was to very clearly to state, in specific terms, why they were breaking away from the English parliament and king. The cursory mention of a god at the beginning of the document does not a national foundation make.
3. As to this “speculation” on who wrote the Declaration, I think you are off. Jefferson’s document was edited by others, but he wrote it. I can think of no credible historian worth his or her salt who says otherwise.
I’m confused. Didn’t I say “i don’t think obama is the antichrist”? DON’T. DON’T. DON’T.
And I sure never mentioned Beelzebub.
And I could care less about his policies because he can only accomplish what GOD allows him to accomplish. SO BE IT!
where did this dragon manager come from anyway?
I am familiar with Jefferson’s bible. I am also aware that several deists, atheists, and agnostics were part of early America’s founding.
I am simply saying that the majority claimed some sort of affiliation with (like today) Christianity.
And I agree (and am happy) that the Declaration of Independence refers to God in very general terms. I do not like the idea of a theocracy. I simply argue that the intent was clear.
And there is much speculation as to who wrote the Declaration. Certainly, Jefferson may have been the primary. But there were likely many contributors.
Deists believe(d) that an eternal god created the universe and then left it alone…no miracles, no divine intervention. This rules out Jesus Christ and Jehovah. What the cosmic watchmaker (this is the metaphor often used to describe the deist god) did do was establish cosmic laws which the universe must follow (e.g. gravity). What Jefferson is referencing here are those cosmic laws as they apply to human rights. So, that’s the “Creator” reference.
As to “Nature’s God,” this is another nod to deism. Since the deist god does not get involved with the universe, Nature is the overarching, guiding force in the universe…because Nature contains those cosmic laws established by the watchmaker.
(And please, Jason, do not take offense to the following. I’m just calling like I see it.) As to the idea of “revisionist history,” there is no such thing as “real history” from which “revisionist history” departs vastly. When someone uses the phrase “revisionist history,” it is simply a way of saying, “This is one interpretation of history that I do not agree with.” Often, I find that conservatives (social and political) use this term to describe ideas from academia that do not support their point of view. History changes every time a new book comes out, and “revisionism” is happening all the time.
Now, to the claim that many of the Founders were deists, atheists, agnostics, etc. As both a historian and a history teacher, I’m pretty familiar with the literature on this matter. From what I have gathered, many of the Founders and Framers (this includes the signers of the Declaration and those who were at the Constitutional Convention) were religious in a broad sense. Most were a part of mainline denominations (e.g. Presbyterian), but an important segment of them were (despite their religious affiliations) not typical church goers. Jefferson was one of these. The best evidence for Jefferson being a deist is the Bible which he edited (often called the Jefferson Bible; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_bible ). In this book, Jefferson cut out ALL of the miracles of Jesus and left only the narrative storyline and the moral teachings. This strongly points to a person who believes in a god that does not intervene in human affairs. Also, Jefferson was very closely associated with the French philsophes of the Enlightenment, who were the original purveyors of deism.
Since Jefferson was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, and in light of the above evidence, it seems to me that it a bit of a stretch to say that document is a “Christian” document in any evangelical sense of what the word “Christian” means today.
Mr. (or Mrs.) Dragon Management,
Here is what the Declaration of Independence starts with:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
I’m confused. Is “Creator” not a blatant reference to God or a god of some sort?
I know there are many that contend that most of the Framers were deists. I have even heard that many were agnostics or atheists from others. That is simply not true. I call that revisionist history. Listen, if it were true, it wouldn’t bother me. But it’s not and that’s reality.
Oh, come on. This is the kind of fear-mongering that makes Christians appear to be out-of-touch, irrelevant, and sometimes downright loopy. If you want to critique his policies, go for it, but please don’t talk about anti-Christ-this or Beelzebub-that.
First, neither the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence contain “blatant references to God based on the Judeo-Christian values of the Founders.” Sorry, Jason, but “Providence” does not fit. At best, it’s deist, which is a far cry of evangelical Protestantism.
Second, in the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796-1797, the Senate of the early Republic said:
“Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
That’s about as clear as it gets with regard to our history and Obama’s recent statements.
There was a time (maybe early 2006) when I thought Obama was the “lesser of two evils”. But more and more, it is becoming eerily obvious that he is not what he said he would be…or what the press said he would be. And his “world” speeches are frightening if you really listen. But boy is he one gifted speech-deliverer…just like that red guy with horns on his head and a pointed tail between his legs.
disclaimer: i don’t think obama is the antichrist or anything like that but i sure think he possesses many of the qualities/character traits that the antichrist will possess.