The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Sunday, June 24, 2007

Obama Draws Not So Subtle Parallel Between Christian Right and Terrorists

Barack Obama has drawn a very disgusting parallel between the Christian Right and the Terrorists that have killed thousands of innocent people. According to AP(my bold):
Sen. Barack Obama told a church convention Saturday that some right- wing evangelical leaders have exploited and politicized religious beliefs in an effort to sow division.

"Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked," the Democratic presidential candidate said in remarks prepared for delivery before the national meeting of the United Church of Christ.

"Part of it's because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who've been all too eager to exploit what divides us," the Illinois senator said.

By making the claim that the Christian Right has hijacked the Faith, Obama is putting them in the same league as Islamofascist terrorists. While some have claimed the principles of the entire Islamic religion support the notion of killing innocent people in the the name of religion, others have tried to throw Islam an Olive Branch by claiming it is a "religion of peace" and that this "noble" religion has merely been hijacked by terrorism. The claim that Terrorists have "hijacked" their religion is a very common claim that very few could have missed.

It is unthinkable that Obama is unaware of the venom and equality to terrorism when he chose to use the word "hijacked". It is obvious that he wanted to link the two entities as being on the same moral ground. The only way that this could not have been purposeful is that Obama (as many lefties do) takes it as a given that the Christian Right and Islamic terrorists are of the same stripe. Taking such a parallel for granted in his mind would eventually leak out into his speech. Whether the parallel was intentional or Obama's mindset that it is true caused this disgusting statement does not matter. Either way Obama believes it.

I am the first to admit that the Christian Right has its problems. So does the Christian Left. So does every political entity from all political perspectives. However, the number of people in all of these organizations, churches, clubs, etc. that would support or initiate the slaughtering of innocent people and rejoice in it is a fraction of one percent. Many from all persuasions simply think they are right and are using their influence to convince others that they are right. Many from all persuasions want to use their influence to shape public policy. The Christian Right is no different in this. People have a big problem with the Christian Right because they are well represented and are effective in shaping public policy.

To me, Obama's statement is not so subltle yet I have not seen anyone else point out this parallel yet. I am sure on Monday it will be brought out and we will see if Obama apologizes or not. My prediction is that he will deny the parallel and move on. Apologies are often demanded, but they make the apologizer appear weak: especially if it is obviously forced and insincere. The longer the time between the offense and the apology, the more damage occurs. Obama would be smart to just get it over with from the start.

Update: Here is a link discussing the hijacking of Islam by terrorists to give you a flavor of what I am referring to.

Labels: , , ,

15 Comments:

  • At 9:57 PM, Blogger Mojo_Risin said…

    Really? You're basing this whole theory on his word choice? I'd say you're blowing this up into something it isn't. Follow this path of reasoning, and it's a minefield of dangerous possibilities. It's almost like someone's putting a gun to your head and making you attempt to come up with conspiracy theories...

    There are many definitions of "hijack" that don't have anything to do with terrorism, I hope you'll agree.

     
  • At 9:59 PM, Blogger Mark said…

    This is much too much over nothing. Saying something is "hijacked" is a common term not reserved only for men with bombs and guns taking over a vessel of transportation.

    The real problem here is a political candidate of any bent speaking with a church group.

    Spiritual groups have no basis and no reason to be involved in government. It's dangerous. Making policy decisions based on beliefs of faith is asking for all sorts of trouble - and our whole country is asking for it right now. The "christian right" is the worst. I tend to think the "christian left" has a better idea of leaving faith alone to be a personal in-home practice, but those pols cater just as much as rights to the "faith" voter. Gross. Makes me sick.

     
  • At 7:15 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    mojo and Mark,

    I think you missed my point. My point was not that he used a violent word. My point was he used a word that has been strongly associated with Islamic terrorists. The phrase "hijacked Islam" has been used by apologists to claim it is not the whole religion with the problem, but a few bad ones that have taken it over for their cause.

    Sorry this is not much ado about nothing. When you are in the big leagues like Obama is trying to be you simply cannot make serious gaffes like this and he should be called on it. I think it is more than a gaffe, but a mindset. If I am correct, then he shows himself unworthy of the office.

     
  • At 11:17 AM, Blogger Jacob said…

    Perhaps what Obama was implying in his statement was that the right-wing elements of Christianity, in much the same way that the right-wing elements of Islam, have claimed a monopoly on morality and effectively taken control (hence 'hijack') of the religious part of society. Or something.

     
  • At 1:09 PM, Blogger Mojo_Risin said…

    I didn't mean to hijack the conversation, but...

    And AICS seems like he's being a little disingenuous here. Saying Obama's word choice is "not so subtle" is an absolute overreach that makes it seem like he's desperate to find insult.

    Jacob is exactly right. And I don't have any problem with any candidate talking to religious groups. They are still part of his (potential) constituency, and it's good for them to interact so they know each other better and can work together if/when he's elected. Spiritual groups shouldn't run the government, true, but the individuals in them are still citizens with their own special-interest concerns, just like unions and such.

     
  • At 1:12 PM, Blogger Mojo_Risin said…

    But AICS, don't worry about it. It happens to all of us...

     
  • At 8:40 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    mojo,

    You claim I am overreaching because I have a problem with one word. I also have a problem when people call me a global warming denier - drawing a parallel to holocaust deniers.

    At the level of a presidential campaign you either know better and say things like this anyway or you don't know better. Even if it is the latter, you are not ready for prime time.

    That said, I seem to be the only one commenting on the parallel. Perhaps it is more subtle than I thought.

     
  • At 8:50 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Mark said,

    Making policy decisions based on beliefs of faith is asking for all sorts of trouble

    What the liberal mind cannot seem to grasp is that ALL who give an opinion toward public policy is influenced by what they believe.

    Just think for a moment on this. Two people have differing opinions. One's opinions is based in their religious belief. The other is based in their non-religious belief. One is encouraged by you to speak their opinion, but the other must keep silent simply because they have religious beliefs? Advance the same thing to the group level.

    If someone believes they are right, even if it is by faith, why should they be discouraged from speaking out? It seems only one side has the right to say things that offend other people while if the other side gets vocal then they don't know their place.

     
  • At 8:56 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    That said, I seem to be the only one commenting on the parallel. Perhaps it is more subtle than I thought.

    scratch that. Malott's with me!

     
  • At 12:19 AM, Blogger paw said…

    No slight is too slight to escape notice around certain parts.

    And yet I'm told to simmer down if someone comes right out and calls me a traitor, a terrorist sympathizer and enabler, the destroyer of western civilization.

    That finely-tuned right-wing sense of being put upon by forces both visible and invisible, that seething insecurity so eager to cry foul and demand an apology or a denouncement - I really don't get that. It's one of the hallmarks of your movement.

    Maybe you could suggest another word to describe what you and your crew have done with our religion and I'll see if it fits. It must be synonymous with hijack.

     
  • At 4:33 AM, Blogger Mark said…

    you said, If someone believes they are right, even if it is by faith, why should they be discouraged from speaking out? It seems only one side has the right to say things that offend other people while if the other side gets vocal then they don't know their place.

    Not pushing for a religious censorship...hold on a bit.

    I just said that making actual decisions based on morning quiet time with the lord is foolish and lunacy. I'm not saying everyone can't get out and rock the vote for Jesus. They can and do and that's great. Just saying that when push comes to shove religious leaders tend to be a little heavy handed with the moral oversight committees and such.

     
  • At 1:17 PM, Blogger Mark said…

    Here's a nifty paragraph in a bbc article on the minor presidential candidates...

    -bold mine-

    Mr Paul speaks, at least in part, for many Republicans who feel their party has been hi-jacked in recent years by two groups who do not really speak for them: the religious conservatives and the neo-conservatives.

     
  • At 7:28 AM, Blogger Malott said…

    PAW wrote...
    "Maybe you could suggest another word to describe what you and your crew have done with our religion and I'll see if it fits."

    Two movements pretty much sum up what we've done with our religion... The Reformation movement... And in the case of the United Church of Christ - The Restoration Movement of the 19th century.

    The latter was an attempt to restore the Church to what it was in the first century. Since then, the UCC has headed away from this principle towards a very politically active and secular belief system.

    So, it is much more appropriate to ask what the Left has done with our religion.

    Being American, devout Christians have a rare opportunity to influence our society politically... And though the Left would prefer us to be quiet, we choose to exercise our rights... Just as the Apostle Paul did as a Roman Citizen.

     
  • At 12:51 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Mark,

    Sorry for the delay. You said:
    Just saying that when push comes to shove religious leaders tend to be a little heavy handed with the moral oversight committees and such.

    I think people from all spectrums religious or otherwise are heavy handed in their approach to public discourse. If one is too light-handed, they will not have much influence. It seems, though, that the religious right is the only group singled out for this.

    I meant to say before I knew you were not calling for cencorship, so sorry if it looked like I was implying that.

     
  • At 1:06 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    paw said:

    And yet I'm told to simmer down if someone comes right out and calls me a traitor, a terrorist sympathizer and enabler, the destroyer of western civilization.

    Not by me. There are always those on both sides that think the best approach to public discourse is to silence the other side. I think the best approach is to "duke it out" verbally and may the best side win. I do think that more on the left than right tend to try to silence (or limit opportunity to hear) those on the right.

    Maybe you could suggest another word to describe what you and your crew have done with our religion and I'll see if it fits. It must be synonymous with hijack.

    Such a statement to me shows a complete lack of knowledge of religious history. Christianity is far to the left of where it was at any other time since it began 2000 years ago.

    In the first 3 centuries Christians were more interested in spreading the Gospel to the ends of the earth than to influence political discourse. They also had other things to worry about like being killed for their beliefs. Then Constantine made it the religion of the empire and Christians have been politically active ever since.

    You would need to study the various Christian movements to see the strength of their influence Remember Prohibition? Not that it was a highlight of success in my book, but is was definitely the result of politically active Christians. Most other influence was local until changes in the methods and speed of communication allowed more national influence.

    To say that Christianity has been hijacked is ludicrous and laughable. So there is no need to come up with any other word. Obama not only used a politically charged word in a deplorable way, he displayed his ignorance of historic Christianity - always a weakness on the left.

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home