Est. May 2008

06 October, 2012

God And Men In Denver

I guess Sally Quinn’s a bit upset about the first Presidential debate: according to her column, Mr. Obama ‘let Romney have the debate’ and he ‘let’ Romney have ’85 percent of the country’.

I only caught the tail-end of the debate, but from what I read on Facebook and at various and sundry news sources I guess you could say Mr. Obama let Mr. Romney have the debate, if ‘giving’ the debate means ‘bringing a feather-duster to a gunfight’.

But how in the world did Mr. Romney get handed 85% of the country?  According to Ms Quinn, it’s because Mr. Obama ‘let’ Mr. Romney use the ‘God-word’ first (those are my quotes, not hers).

It fascinates me that there are still people out there who keep trying to defend Mr.
Obama’s profession of Christianity by saying that people think he’s a Muslim and he’s not (to me, he’s a religious chameleon, changing his religious ‘color’ depending on the needs of the current situation).  But by this time – almost four years into his presidency – Mr. Obama’s words and actions are clearly what’s making people question his profession of Christianity.

What do I mean by ‘words and actions’?  His what-looks-like-a whole-hearted embrace of Muslim holidays and his lackadaisical promotion of Christian holidays; his obvious lack of church attendance; his health-care plan’s assault on religious liberty in the form of forced provision of birth control; his now-dispensed-with twenty-year spiritual advisor, Jeremiah Wright; his demands to cover obviously religious symbols when he spoke at Notre Dame; the list goes on, and I don’t have room to cover all of the examples which make questions of his faith-profession obvious.

(As an aside, I don’t hold the fracas over ‘God-language’ at the Democrat National Convention against him – after all, Mr. Obama isn’t the entirety of the Democrat Party.  What I do hold against him is the fact that he approved of the God-less platform before he was against it.)

But I think Ms Quinn inadvertently tells us even she wonders about Mr. Obama’s Christianity when she writes, ‘If Obama wants to win the next debate, he needs to wear God, as much as it offends him to do so’.  Why in the world would ‘wearing God’ offend a true Christian?  Because Mr. Obama doesn’t want to be seen as using God as a political prop?  Horse-hockey – he’s used ‘God-language’ as a political prop numerous times before.  Perhaps, in front of a national audience, any use of ‘God-language’ would definitely appear as though he’s using God as a prop to the people who, based on his words and actions, have come to question his faith.

Or, perhaps, his discomfort runs deeper than that.  Perhaps even soul-deep.


Mr. Obama didn’t ‘capture the flag’ at the debate – he wore that flag pin like he wears his religion: as a convenience, necessary for the immediate situation.

Oh, and Republicans didn’t ‘take away the flag’, either – they picked it up after the Democrats decided to drop it when they considered the flag ‘pandering’ – I think it was back in the 60’s when that happened (but I might have my dates wrong).

No comments: