Thursday, June 04, 2009

President Obama: "Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism.."

Islam, the president assures us, " an important part of promoting peace."
Really? As explained in an excellent article entitled, "Islam: A History of Oppression, Violence and Fanaticism," "...Muhammad, the leader of Muslims, claimed that he was a 'prophet,' and in the name Allah, he ordered his followers to kill the 'infidels,' non-Muslims; in particular, Jews and Christians."
The founder of Islam ordered his followers to kill non-Muslims. And President Obama considers Islam "an important part of promoting peace"?
I'm not a fan of Ann Coulter. But she raises a valid point as liberals attempt to portray pro-lifers as "domestic terrorists" because of the murder of late-term abortionist Dr. George Tiller:
"According to recent polling, a majority of Americans oppose abortion -- which is consistent with liberals' hysterical refusal to allow us to vote on the subject. In a country with approximately 150 million pro-lifers, five abortionists have been killed since Roe v. Wade. In that same 36 years, more than 49 million babies have been killed by abortionists. Let's recap that halftime score, sports fans: 49 million to five. Meanwhile, fewer than 2 million Muslims live in America and, while Muslims are less murderous than abortionists, I'm fairly certain they've killed more than five people in the United States in the last 36 years. For some reason, the number "3,000" keeps popping into my head. "
While President Obama has now referred to Islam as "an important part of promoting peace," his administration hasn't taken such a rosy view of the pro-life community. See here.


Amanda said...

And Dianne Williamson would compare pro-lifers with those who flew planes into the WTC buildings? That's lunacy!

Anonymous said...

Tom McFeeley of The National Catholic Register asks, "Is Islam a Religion of Peace?"

His reply:

Barack Obama and George W. Bush have many political differences, but they share this in common: Both treat Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance.

Obama repeatedly characterized Islam that way in the speech he delivered today to the world’s Muslims, before an enthusiastic audience at Cairo University. From the perspective of political pragmatism, this might make good sense.

But Obama’s portrayal of Islam comprehensively misrepresents the doctrinal content and historical record of Islam, according to this detailed critique of Obama’s speech posted by Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch (

Here is a sampling of Spencer’s analysis. In his introductory remarks, Obama said this:

We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world – tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Spencer responds:

“Co-existence and cooperation”? When and where, exactly?
Note that Obama lists only ways in which the West has, in his view, mistreated the Islamic world. Not a word about the jihad doctrine, not a word about Islamic supremacism and the imperative to make war against and subjugate non-Muslims as dhimmis. Not a word about the culture of hatred and contempt for non-Muslims that existed long before the spread of American culture (“modernity and globalization”) around the world, which Obama D’Souzaishly suggests is responsible for the hostility Muslims have for the West.

Michael Cole said...

While President Obama is treating Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance - and reminding the Muslim world of his Muslim roots - this article published in the San Francisco Chronicle highlights just how much the hatred toward Catholicism is accepted in our sin-sick society:

"San Francisco didn't cross into constitutionally forbidden territory of government hostility to religion when the Board of Supervisors denounced a Vatican order to Catholic Charities not to place adoptive children with same-sex couples, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The 2006 resolution condemned the Vatican's "hateful and discriminatory rhetoric" and urged local church officials to defy the order by Cardinal William Levada. The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights sued, contending the city was expressing hostility toward Catholicism in violation of the Constitution.

A federal judge threw out the suit, a decision that the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld Wednesday. It said the supervisors had acted for a legal secular purpose - to protect gay and lesbian couples from discrimination - and not to express the city's disapproval of Catholicism.

"The board's focus was on same-sex couples, not Catholics," Judge Richard Paez said in the 3-0 ruling. Promoting equal treatment for those couples in adoptions isn't anti-religious, he said, "regardless of whether the Catholic Church may be opposed to it as a religious tenet."

Judge Marsha Berzon, in a separate opinion, said the resolution was close to the constitutional boundary and might have been invalid if it contained binding regulations or was part of a "pervasive public campaign" against the Catholic Church.

The board passed the nonbinding resolution, sponsored by then-Supervisor Tom Ammiano, in March 2006, days after Levada, former archbishop of the San Francisco Archdiocese, issued his decree as leader of the church's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Levada said Catholic agencies "should not place children for adoption in homosexual households." Quoting a statement by the Vatican office, he said allowing children to be adopted by same-sex couples "would actually mean doing violence to these children."

Ammiano's resolution called the decree "an insult to San Francisco." The supervisors urged Levada to withdraw his order and called on his successor as archbishop, George Niederauer, and the local Catholic Charities to disregard it.

In response, Catholic Charities of San Francisco stopped placing children for adoption, the same step it has taken in Massachusetts and other areas with similar nondiscrimination policies, said Brian Rooney, a lawyer at the Thomas More Law Center, which sued San Francisco on behalf of the Catholic League.

Rooney said the league would appeal Wednesday's ruling.

The supervisors' resolution would have led the public to believe that "the government is disfavoring of Catholicism," he said.

But Deputy City Attorney Vince Chhabria said the lawsuit sought to insulate the Vatican from criticism by government bodies.

"Religious groups are not entitled to preferential treatment in public debate," Chhabria said.

Fred said...

Democracy has its roots in Christianity. The Western nations became so great because they were Christian. And yet, President Obama, ignoring this history of the Democratic nations, said in his speech: "Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail."

The Islamic nations are hopelessly backward, violent and oppressive. If the President truly believes that Islamic nations which behead women for not wearing a certain type of dress or for other silly "infractions" are equal to Democratic nations with the rule of law, then he is, in my opinion, unstable.

Duncan said...

President Obama has said that "Whatever we once were, we're no longer a Christian nation.."

Now he has referred to the United States as a "Muslim nation."

I wonder how most Christians feel about this?

Anonymous said...

Raymond Ibrahim of Jihad Watch judges Obama's speech as "Needing more than a Blessing ("barack" in Arabic)":

Though he early indicated that this would be an honest, heart-to-heart talk—“we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors” and “let me speak as clearly and plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together” —Obama did not follow through.

A heart-to-heart talk revealing what is “said only behind closed doors” would have included any number of issues pitting the Islamic world on a collision course with the West—from that business of jihad and enmity for infidels, to sharia law and dhimmi status of non-Muslim minorities, etc.—issues that have led to a majority of Americans having a negative view of the Muslim world.

Instead, for every mild admonishment directed at the Islamic world, Obama immediately followed by several admissions of American mistakes, including reactions to 9/11, which “in some cases, led us to act contrary to our ideals.” That’s to say nothing of the constant adulation he offered the Muslim world.

This double-standard is typified by the way he equivocated on the topic of Muslim persecution vis-à-vis religious minorities, while repeatedly gushing over how he’s helping American Muslims fulfill their zakat obligation and Muslim women wear the hijab vis-à-vis a non-friendly American system.

All fine platitudes, including his talk of “hope” and “change” (yes, he managed to sneak those hackneyed words in, forgetting he’s not talking to Americans)—but will any of it be effective? Probably not—since he did not have the heart-to-heart he promised, but, once again, sought to placate and humor, under the delusion that the problem between the Islamic world and the West revolves around temporal issues that can be easily ameliorated.

In the long run, of course, nothing Obama said today makes any difference. After all, he—and the naive notion he embodies that all conflict is a product of “misunderstanding” and the need for “mutual respect”—is but a dot in that long continuum of stark history, one that he neither addressed nor understands.

In short, we need more than platitudes, or even a "blessing" -- the Arabic meaning of Barack's name -- to make a difference.

Stewart said...

According to the website, Islamic terrorists have carried out more than 13,316 deadly terror attacks since 9/11. How then can Obama say what he did about Islam? After just one shooting of an abortionist, look at all the liberal journalists who said that pro-lifers are "terrorists." Obama said that Tiller's murder was "heinous." And it was. But what about these 13,316 Islamic terror attacks? Are they also heinous Mr. President? Islam is not part of the problem? Is he joking?

Paul Anthony Melanson said...

Thank you all for your comments. Fred, let's strive to remember that Barack Obama is still the President of these United States. While we are free to disagree with his policies, statements etc, we should always respect the office he holds.

Thank you and God bless.

Anonymous said...

A reply to the National Catholic Reporter's John Allen, who sees a "'Remarkable congruence' between pope and president on Islam" (

Pope Benedict and President Obama Endorse Islam
By LawHawkSF
June 4, 2009

In the past few days, news headlines and feature stories in the mainstream media have led many to think that the Pope may have lost his mind and that Obama has discovered that America is a significantly Muslim nation. Neither is entirely true, although I have my suspicions that the misapprehension regarding Obama may suit his personal vision to some extent. A little detail and some clarification are in order.

Let's go with the Pope first. I like him better. Pope Benedict has been quoted in the Associated Press, the BBC, the Jerusalem Post, the Washington Times and Al-Jazeera as saying that he has "deep respect for Islam," according to Raymond Ibrahim of pajamasmedia. Given that this sounds a great deal more like Obama than Benedict, it's appropriate to look closer at what the Pope really said. The head of the Church that stopped the Muslim advance into Europe and sponsored the Crusades actually said "I have deep respect for Muslims," quite a different thing. One can have deep respect for a group, and even for their faithful adherence to their beliefs without endorsing, or even respecting the underlying religion. I'm sure he respects Lutherans too, but I don't expect him to be adopting the Augsburg Confession any time soon. I'm sure he respects Hindus, but don't expect a Papal homily on the wit and wisdom of Vishnu to come from the Vatican in the near future. In fact, I'm sure he respects atheists, but he won't be endorsing their view by telling the world from the Papal throne that "we were just kidding, there really is no God."

In order for the Pope to respect Islam, it would require that he believe that there is eternal truth in that religion's core belief that the Koran is the verbatim revealed word of God, that Jesus Christ was a mere prophet, and that Muhammad was God's sole messenger. The Pope may respect someone who believes that, but it's just plain silly to think that the Pope respects the belief itself. Even if all the politically-correct nonsense about Islam being the religion of peace were true, and jihadist mass murderers aside, the idea that the Vicar of Christ would even consider Muhammad to be the sole messenger of God is patently illogical. The Pope would never cede that position even to Luther, and Luther was at least a Christian. So relax all you Christians in general, and you Catholics in particular, Pope Benedict has not slipped his trolley.

(continued below)

Anonymous said...

A reply to the National Catholic Reporter's John Allen, who sees a "'Remarkable congruence' between pope and president on Islam" (

Pope Benedict and President Obama Endorse Islam; by LawHawkSF (concluded)

On the other hand, President Obama's speech, prepared for delivery in Egypt (a Muslim nation, in case you had missed that juicy tidbit of news), will either be a foray into wishful thinking or an insidiously misleading description of Islam in America. After recently making it clear that he did not consider America a Christian nation, he has gone off on another tangent with his statements about Islam. His legally correct statement about America not being a Christian nation was phrased in such a way as to indicate that he believes that Christianity has little influence on government. I cannot look into the President's heart to know whether he really believes that, or whether he considers that a good thing, but I have no doubt that it was said to placate the raging Islamists and Jihadis. After going out of his way to downplay the influence of Christian thought in America, he now seeks to enhance his position with Islamic countries by inflating the influence of Islam in America. Today, Obama mused about his Muslim roots in Indonesia, and indicated he intended to "open the way for a better dialogue and the common ground between East and West." He reiterated this in an interview with Le Monde and hinted that he would advance the idea in his scheduled June 4 speech in Cairo.

I don't buy the idea that Obama is a secret Muslim, but it's hard to deny that he was raised in his early years in a Muslim household, and that by some Islamic thought, once a Muslim, always a Muslim. It is my humble opinion that in many ways the incorrect belief that the Pope "respects Islam" may very well be true of Obama. And in pursuit of that respect (as well as his diplomatic fortunes in the Middle East), the President's speech will cite a true statistic in an untrue manner. The President is expected to repeat that "The United States is one of the largest Muslim countries on the planet (he already stated that in his Le Monde interview)." This is not being reported by conservative sources only. The New York Times has even picked up on the story.

So what's wrong with that? Well, there are realistically about 4,140,000 Muslims in America (1.4% of the population) as cited by and the CIA Factbook. That would make America number 41 in Muslim national populations. Muslims and their supporters have tended to inflate that number for political advantage, but even if the statistic is wrong by half, then the most that Muslims can claim in America is 2.8% of the population. I think that the Crips and the Bloods, combined with the many new Latino gangs can claim at least that many, but nobody is claiming that America is a great gang nation. Obama is truly describing the Muslim tail wagging the American dog.

In his Le Monde interview, Obama goes on to state that the "United States and the Western world must learn about Islam, and . . . there is now a real conflict between those who argue that Islam is irreconcilable with modern life and those who believe the contrary, Islam has always evolved along with the progress." In other words, he believes that the United States must learn from Islam rather than the reverse, that those who believe Islam is irreconcilable with modern life are wrong, and that Islam is actually progressive. That will come as a shock to those now suffering and dying in the gay holocaust in Iraq and to millions of women in most Islamic nations. Later, Obama revised his remarks to include instructing Muslims on how the United States and the West view Islam, but it didn't change the meaning of the original in any significant way.

I can only conclude that as to the Pope--he's sane. As to Obama--not entirely sure.

Site Meter