The Antichrist (or not)

(Let me just say that I am not really an Obama supporter. I’m not planning on voting for him. But this anti-Obama stuff is just getting ridiculous.)

Did you hear the news? Obama is a TERRORIST. He must be. Because he’s a closet MUSLIM. And all MUSLIMS are TERRORISTS.
Or not.

I don’t really know whether Obama was ever a practicing Muslim or not. I don’t care. It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter if our nation’s leader is a Christian, agnostic, atheist, Muslim, or Taoist. It doesn’t matter.

I know a lot of Christians, and some “Christians,” are going to disagree with me there, pulling out examples from the Bible and maybe even from history of “godless” nations that are destroyed, evidently because of their lack of faith. Nevermind the fact that, sooner or later, all nations get replaced; it must be the hand of God, every time.
Well, maybe it is.

Until you can prove it, though – which you’ll never be able to do – I’m just going to go right along saying that in this nation, this pretty much excellent nation that claims to allow all sorts of beliefs – it doesn’t matter. Frankly, I’m all for the separation of church & state to begin with. And for another thing, even if Obama is a Muslim, he’s not a bloody terrorist. And let’s just say that he gets elected as President and then unveils his true colors as the ANTICHRIST and subsequently declares that Islam will be that nation’s religion…

Do you really think it would stick? Do you think he could get away with it? Do you think he would even survive 24 hours after such a proclamation? No! Of course not!

Some people have even gotten on his case because of his middle name: Hussein. He was named after his grandfather, a devout Muslim.
I was almost named Polly Esther (no joke). Does that mean that I would have worn nothing but polyester for my entire life? Yeah, not so much. You can’t decide what your parents name you, and it’s really not uncommon for a child to be named after a close relative.

But anyway, maybe Obama is or was a Muslim. Still doesn’t matter to me.

Then again, maybe he’s NOT a Muslim. Maybe it’s just a bunch of hype seeping out from some McCain supporters and, of course, some religious folks. I read this one blog – Thoughts from a Conservative Christian. I read quite a few blog entries, but my favorite was all about how eeeeeevil Obama is, that dirty MUSLIM.
This was the best part:

In 1971, Obama enrolled in the Besuki Primary School, a government school, as Barry Soetoro, Muslim.
All Indonesian students are required to study religion at school and a young Barry Soetoro, being a Muslim, would have been required to study Islam daily in school.

Wow! “Barry” was essentially forced to study Islam. How dare he?! I don’t know know if it’s true that all Indonesian students are required to study religion – the Conservative Christian blog got the info from another blog – but the blogger in question certainly seems to believe it. And later we get this gem:

According to Islamic scholars, reciting the Shahada, the Muslim declaration of faith, makes one a Muslim. This simple yet profound statement expresses a Muslim’s complete acceptance of, and total commitment to, the message of Islam. Obama chanted it with pride and finesse.

This, of course, is entirely similar to the idea that calling on the name of Jesus Christ will redeem you. But even though Obama’s done that…it doesn’t matter. What matters is that he recited the Shahada (and I think one can safely assume he didn’t just randomly volunteer such information; if I’m wrong, let me know). For all I/we know, Obama doesn’t believe that reciting the Shahada makes you a Muslim. I mean, I could recite it right now and I wouldn’t consider myself a Muslim. Mr. Conservative Christian Blogger apparently doesn’t take this idea into consideration.

By the way…let’s just say, again, for the sake of argument, that Obama really was a devout Muslim who changed his religion so that he could fulfill his dream of becoming President.
Does that sound like something an extremist would do?

Published in: on September 9, 2008 at 7:17 pm  Comments (6)  
Tags: , ,

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

6 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. You say you are all for separation of church and state, yet in your Palin blog you say you support her wanting creationism taught in schools. Aren’t you contradicting yourself? Also public school should have nothing in their curriculum that mixes religion and studies, if you want a child to be taught toward a certain religion in school, then you should send them to a religion school. If creationism is forced to be taught in school, a teacher can take that and teach all the creationism stories, from each different religion, tribes, etc. I do agree that Obama isn’t the anti-christ. The anti=Christ is supposed to be more liked and that isn’t true with Obama, he has his supporters and those who don’t support him.

  2. I’d like to thank you for taking time out of your day to comment on my blog, and since you raised some questions, I would also like to answer them:

    First, on the Sarah Palin blog issue – I do not believe that creationism is necessarily a religious issue. I believe it is more a matter of choice. You said “forcing” creationism to be taught would be harmful – and yet, by that logic, is it not harmful to “force” evolution to be taught? You must realize that neither theory is anything more than a theory – they are not, and can never be, proven. To give students a choice to decide which they want to believe is more beneficial than only teaching one theory, whether it be evolution or creationism. I’m sure you agree that we young people have a right to make some of our own decisions, and I believe that deciding if we believe in either creationism or evolution (or both, or neither) is one of those important choices we should be allowed to make for ourselves.
    Also, you say that a teacher could use the creationism/evolution curriculum to teach many different types of world beginnings. That simply is not a true. A teacher would still have to submit their curriculum to the powers-that-be, just as they do now, as those authorities would make sure that the teacher is only teaching that which is approved.
    And finally, although I’m glad you don’t think that Obama is the Antichrist, I hope you know that if the Antichrist ever does come, he will be liked and disliked. It’s impossible for anyone to be universally liked.

    Thank you again for your comments, and please feel free to leave more. 🙂

  3. The creationism part, so which creationism should they teach. If they teach the christian one, won’t parents who don’t believe in God object or other religions object. While Evolution is science, creationism is religion,faith and certain different factions. There isn’t a universal creationism story while in evolution it is one story. In the science books, they have an evolution sticker saying that evolution is a theory not fact. But can you say that for creationism. In science classes, where they teach evolution, which is a scientifical theory while creationism isn’t fact or theory but believe.

  4. Unfortunately, that’s simply untrue. There are scientists out there who believe in creationism, and I have heard many evolutionists say “Creationism is a theory.” The thing about a “theory” is that, as it’s not proven fact, it really is not much more than a belief, as noted in this definition: “A belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action.”
    Other definitions include, “A hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation, “An unproved assumption,” and “An abstract thought.”

    As for parents objecting, what about the parents who object to their children being taught evolution? Why do you think that only one type of person matters? Giving people a choice about which theory to believe by introducing them both is, frankly, the only way that’s fair.
    Also, there really isn’t a universal evolution theory, mostly due to the problem of the “missing link.” Some people believe in microevolution and macro; some don’t. Some believe we came from “monkeys”; some don’t. Some believe God created animals and the animals then evolved; some don’t. So exactly what makes evolution so “universal?”

  5. So which creationism theory should they teach?

  6. Excellent question. Which evolution theory should they teach? Which creationism theory should they teach?
    I have no idea which one they should teach for either theory. I think the only way to choose is by letting the masses rule. Right now the masses are saying, “Evolution only!” but they used to say “Creationism only!” And I have a feeling we’re going to see another change soon enough.
    Anyway, it’s only a matter of time before some new, improved, “better” theory of how the world began comes out.

    I think that most people who support creationism being taught in schools would want the main one from Genesis 1 & 2. And naturally, they would want the teachers to skim over all the stuff that doesn’t add up in the two accounts.

    Me, personally, though? I like the idea of teaching a mix. Teach evolution and teach creationism with evolution mixed in – the idea that Something created man and other things, which ended up evolving. Microevolution. Because I just don’t see how people walk around thinking, “WOW! This world is so complicated and wonderful…the trees…the animals…my circulatory system…what an amazing coincidence that it all worked out!”
    Like I said though – that’s just me. Everyone’s going to have a different opinion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: