« Beldar's initial take on the Sotomayor nomination | Main | In memorium: James Dillard Dyer, Jr. (12/24/22 to 6/22/09) »
Thursday, June 04, 2009
POTUS as the Great Defender of the Faith
Did you have the same reaction that I did back in 2001 when — in an official speech specifically directed to the Christian world during one of his trips to the Middle East, a speech whose official theme was "A New Beginning" — President George W. Bush firmly rejected the constitutional separation of church and state, and instead proclaimed that his official duties included the defense and promotion of one religion (emphasis mine):
So I have known Christianity on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Christianity must be based on what Christianity is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Christianity wherever they appear. (Applause.)
Except ...
That was actually today, not 2001. It was President Obama, not President Bush. And it was Islam, not Christianity.
It's fine for an American President to try to understand, respect, and avoid giving unnecessary offense to Muslims, in or outside of America. But pandering to them is unseemly. And pretending that "fight[ing] against negative sterotypes of Islam wherever they appear" is "part of [the] responsibility [of the] President of the United States" is grotesque. Did our self-proclaimed former professor of constitutional law actually read this speech before he delivered it from his teleprompter? If he did, then that raises the question: Has he actually read his present job description, or the rest of the Constitution and its amendments?
---------------------------
UPDATE (Mon Jun 8 @ 7:40pm): As commenter K~Bob mentioned below, Houston-based talk-radio host (and AM Operations Manager for Clearchannel AM stations KTRH, KPRC, and KBME) Michael Berry, guest-hosting for Mark Levin on his syndicated national radio show last Friday, twice referenced and read approvingly from this post on the air. Mr. Berry was kind enough to phone me today and also to send me a link to a podcast of the broadcast, for all of which I'm genuinely grateful!
Posted by Beldar at 10:25 PM in Current Affairs, Law (2009), Obama, Politics (2009), Religion | Permalink
TrackBacks
Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to POTUS as the Great Defender of the Faith and sent a trackback ping are listed here:
Comments
(1) Michael J. Myers made the following comment | Jun 4, 2009 11:26:11 PM | Permalink
Or does Obama think he is the Queen of England? Part of her job duty (and part of the duties of most every English monarch since Henry VIII--I'll hold off on what Oliver Cromwell might have thought) is Fidei Defensor, or "Defender of the Faith".
Somewhere out there, there's a job that actually fits Obama's abilities; I'm just not certain that that job is President of the USA.
(2) Gregory Koster made the following comment | Jun 5, 2009 12:01:49 AM | Permalink
Dear Mr. Dyer: Sure he read the Constitution's religion sections before giving this speech. Just like he read the bankruptcy statutes and codes before he went after the auto industry creditors with a Tommy gun, and filled those dummies full of lead. What's attributed to Commodore Vanderbilt says it best:
"Law? What do I care for law? Hain't I got the power?"
Our adversaries in the Middle East and elsewhere alternate between boyish smirks and wait-it-can't-be-this-easy-something's-gotta-be wrong frowns. Not until they go into action and blow up The One's spun-sugar notions will things change. He still thinks he's smart. I continue to doubt, even while being sure that he has zero wisdom.
Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster
(3) Larry Brown made the following comment | Jun 5, 2009 12:51:03 PM | Permalink
Rule #1. There are no "moderate" muslims. There are only jihadis and apostates.
(4) Beldar made the following comment | Jun 5, 2009 3:33:59 PM | Permalink
Mr. Brown (#3), with due respect, you neatly illustrate my point.
I disagree with your comment — from the point of view of a jihadi, it's a tautology, but it's false to presume that jihadis are the only Muslims who count — so I can confidently label your comment as one of the anti-Muslim stereotypes to which President Obama was referring.
But the notion that he, in his official capacity as POTUS, has an "responsibility" to "fight" your comment on my blog is ridiculous. After all, he's too busy overseeing the sacking of General Motors and Chrysler, the destruction of our health-care system, and the redistribution of our national wealth to moderate my comments section.
If he tried, however, you can damn sure bet I'd resist on constitutional grounds — not because I agree with your comment or would want to defend it on its merits (which are limited to a thin joke), but because I insist that I'm the only person who moderates my comments section.
(5) Mike made the following comment | Jun 5, 2009 3:39:30 PM | Permalink
He read it. He just didn't much like it.
(6) Allan Yackey made the following comment | Jun 5, 2009 3:42:19 PM | Permalink
This administration is like a Sorcerer’s Apprentice. It only knows how to intone the incantations that start things, but hasn’t a clue about the consequences of the actions that the spells create. It also has not considered what to do once the spells begin, much less how to stop them when they go awry.
Its going to be a wild ride.
It is unclear if there actually is a Master Sorcerer in the wings to come to the rescue and clean up the mess.
(7) Watchman made the following comment | Jun 5, 2009 3:46:50 PM | Permalink
Allen, that's the best analogy I've seen yet. Spot on.
(8) Larry Brown made the following comment | Jun 5, 2009 6:55:54 PM | Permalink
Thank you, Beldar. I am testing the logic of that statement for flaws. Consider the eventuality that sharia becomes dominant in the world. Do not all the "moderate" muslims become jihadis in that they will denounce the "infidel" to the local sharia council and appropriate/subjugate their property/family? Would that they, moderates, not do this in order to prevent being accused of apostacy? The koran exhorts this. Muslims that do count seem to be strangely few and mostly silent. As far as POTUS goes, have you seen Holder's anouncement of protections for the Islamic faith?
(9) Legal Aid made the following comment | Jun 5, 2009 11:20:26 PM | Permalink
The church and state are two different entities which interests are pursued effectively if apart.
(10) K~Bob made the following comment | Jun 6, 2009 1:57:47 AM | Permalink
Bill, this entry got mentioned on Mark Levin's radio broadcast by his guest host (who's name I didn't catch).
"Excellent." /Mr.Burns
(11) nk made the following comment | Jun 7, 2009 11:50:27 AM | Permalink
I used to agree with Mr. Brown until a wonderful lady, who is also a Muslim, married into my family. The only difference between "us" is that she does not cook pork at her house for family dinners and she serves us alcohol but does not drink it herself. (She is also younger and prettier than I am, but then who in my family isn't?)
(12) Larry Brown made the following comment | Jun 7, 2009 4:17:17 PM | Permalink
To nk,
Doesn't that make her an apostate? The question is posed purely to learn. As stated earlier this is a search for logical flaws. If she has shared her views with you, I would be thankful if she would comment. My current take is that jihadis have little use for nuance.
(13) nk made the following comment | Jun 7, 2009 6:09:16 PM | Permalink
Islam is not monolithic, no matter how much Osama bin Laden may wish it to be. In fact, his Wahabism is a very recent off-shoot and considered a heresy by traditional Sunnis and Shiites. I am also told that the Druze Moslems of Lebanon are practically Zoroastrians. American Black Muslims are considered out of "the Faith", too.
As for my sister-in-law, she is a Sunni, from a heritage that ruled the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe up to the gates of Vienna, at one time. One of my ancestors, going back to 1829 was one too, but that did not prevent his grandson, my grandfather, from fighting against the very same empire, for the independence of his native land, in 1912.
(14) Larry Brown made the following comment | Jun 7, 2009 6:52:57 PM | Permalink
That being said, are they truly few and mostly silent? (Forebears not withstanding) What I am fishing for here is a hint of an "Islamic reformation". Current reading on my part concludes that an internal reformation is not possible due to fear of apostacy and it's dire consequence. External "Transformation" is the only likely successful course but likely very bloody as in the last 1400 years. What would it take for the Saudi's to remove the sword from their flag?
(15) nk made the following comment | Jun 8, 2009 6:22:23 AM | Permalink
What would it take for the Saudi's to remove the sword from their flag?
If we are talking about the Saudis and their reciprocal relationship with the Wahabis, that is an entirely different matter. Like I said before, Wahabism is considered practically a heresy by the older Muslim traditions. As for the sword, it is Zulfikar, the sword of either Mohammed or Ali. Would you want the British to take out the crosses of St. George, St. Andrew, and St. Patrick from their flag?
(16) Larry Brown made the following comment | Jun 8, 2009 12:15:03 PM | Permalink
That was used/is used to spread the ideology "Submit or die". The Christian icons represent an effort(amongst other things) to regain what was lost to Islam.
I posited several questions that have been avoided. Doesn't that make her an apostate also? Why are they silent? The only thing I hear from Islam seems pretty darn monolithic. Reformation or transformation?
(17) Paul_In_Houston made the following comment | Jun 8, 2009 6:59:23 PM | Permalink
This has strayed a bit from Mr. Beldar's original post, but I'd like to especially commend nk and Mr. Brown for keeping their discussion civil and to the point (with some very good points) and NOT letting it degenerate into a flame war.
Thanks, to both of you.
-
(18) Larry Brown made the following comment | Jun 8, 2009 8:24:40 PM | Permalink
Thank you. It's a search. The people on this blog are whip smart.
Can't much learn anything if they feel provoked. Much prefer thoughtful.
(19) conservare made the following comment | Jun 9, 2009 1:18:27 AM | Permalink
Awesome piece! I heard Michael Berry reference it in my car today while listening to the podcast of the Mark Levin show. I had to check it out. America needs to wake up and realize the mistake we have made. 2012 can't get here fast enough.
(20) nk made the following comment | Jun 10, 2009 10:00:08 AM | Permalink
I do think that Saudi Wahabism is a danger both to the West and traditional Islam. But it is still only 1% of Islam.
(21) Larry Brown made the following comment | Jun 10, 2009 1:13:21 PM | Permalink
In the interest of continuing the search. What of the other 99%?
I posited several questions that have been avoided. Doesn't that make her an apostate also? Why are they silent? The only thing I hear from Islam seems pretty darn monolithic. Reformation or transformation?
(22) David Blue made the following comment | Jun 17, 2009 10:09:54 AM | Permalink
Did our self-proclaimed former professor of constitutional law actually read this speech before he delivered it from his teleprompter? If he did, then that raises the question: Has he actually read his present job description, or the rest of the Constitution and its amendments?
He doesn't need to. He knows everything that matters. When you have a body that interprets a document authoritatively, the document says what that body says it says.
This is a matter of will.
Islam, as a system, has displayed the institutional will needed to gain the respect that other religions don't get. Because of the things it inspires its devotees to do, it has earned a position of superiority, which is what it demands throughout the world to the end of time.
Men like Barack Obama, personally, bend the knee in the face of that implacable and bloody determination to dominate. They are not necessarily called to any faith, but they lack the impulse to flash the tyrant a defiant eye. They prefer to be fierce and merciless with the weak, if they have to make a stand. It's not just that it's safer that way. It's less confronting. It's cooler. One doesn't have to get down off one's pedestal.
And men like Barack Obama, institutionally, choose the judges that can say, in the long run, through an accumulation of various levels of scrutiny of due and undue burdens and emanations of penumbras of adamant will and steel-melting fire and spine-softening fear, what the constitution says. What the Constitution says will not be anything that makes them or their political, social and peer / status networks too nervous.
Once the judges have inserted something in the constitution, whoever absurd, however horrifying, however lacking in textual basis, generations can rise up and go down to their graves in vain trying to overturn it.
Of course, I'm not taking a typical empty politician's promise for a settled program of constitutional revision by fiat. When it comes to getting Barack Obama to follow through on his golden promises, Muslims have to get in line like everyone else.
But whatever obstacles stand in the way of President Barack Obama redefining his office in line with his speech to the Muslim world, the lack of a single word in the Constitution authorizing the new understanding of the President's duties is not one of them.
Things as crazy as that have been done before, and they have stood. It may take generations of Borking and counter-Borking, but they can be done again, and made to stick again.
The comments to this entry are closed.
