If you have "no place to go," come here!

Obama's response to being "accused" of being a Muslim

vastleft's picture

Obamaites and other apologists are falling all over themselves to rationalize The Likeable One's Christianist brochure.

They claim that in the face of the scurrilous accusation that Obama believes in a different Abrahamic superstition than the one he subscribes to, he had to nail himself to the cross as a "Committed Christian" who's been "Called to Christ" (I thought the latter meant you were dead; apparently it just means you're a panderer).

Here's what I would say if someone "accused" me of being a Muslim:

I hope my fellow Americans are above judging each other based on mistaken rumors about each others’ religious affiliations. My beliefs are (fill-in-the-blank), but I would hope my countrymen and -women wouldn’t judge me differently if they were something else. The separation of church and state is a tremendous gift from our forefathers, one of the pillars of American freedom.

My fill-in-the blank happens to be Atheist. But the statement would make just as sense if I were a disciple of Jesus, YHWH, or the FSM. And, since Obama belongs to the One True Faith of our Christian Nation, what an easy way for him to put in a free plug for him being On the Side of the Angels! Nothing to apologize for, because he's not a filthy Muslim, Jew, or noodly-appendage worshiper.

What would be the right thing to say if he were “accused” of being a Jew? Same "I'm a committed Christian" brochure?

Or if he were “accused” of being a Chinaman? A pamphlet insinuating that he comes from relatively noble racial stock?

This guy (remember him?) said it pretty good:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish--where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials--and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew--or a Quaker--or a Unitarian--or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim--but tomorrow it may be you--until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end--where all men and all churches are treated as equal--where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice--where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind--and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

Since you're accustomed to claiming the mantle of 1960s heroes (while ruing the awful divisiveness of the era), how about making a brochure that says something like that?

No votes yet


Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

apparently, this is one area where Obama did not think to don the JFK mantle.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Discovered your blog few days ago.
Insightful comments and I applaud your candor in calling out the hypocrisy of the current crop of politicians.
As Krugman pointed in his column recently, Obama has been attacking Clinton from the right. He lost me very very early in the campaign when I saw through his fluff (missing key votes in the senate, never taking a stand for any progressive cause & calling for unilateral strikes on Pakistan and promoting a hawkish foreign policy(Ref: Greenwald's column in Salon))...

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Just to clarify, I support none of these so called front runners. There has never been a level playing field for legitimate candidates to gain traction in these elections.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Does the name "Marzo Plod" mean anything to you?

If so, please drop me a line at vastleft AT vastleft DOT com.

In any case, I had the same life cycle with Obama. Pretty early in the game, he seemed to be shaving points off the progressive score, and he's never stopped.

Submitted by lambert on


Demands an extended riff.

We want to run up the score, not shave points!

(And who's placed the bet that's driving the point-shaving?)

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.