They called it a shameful statement, an embarrassment, an act of self-destruction on the part of President Obama, a defense of terrorism, and an out-and-out attack on Christianity. They said that he was equating terrorism with Christianity, a “moral equivalency” that was “stupid and dumb” (both??). They called it “moral stupidity” (at least it wasn’t immoral stupidity). They said the president was displaying his own closet Muslim faith, and his hatred of America itself. They even touted it as proof that “liberals” in general (of which they’re immovably convinced Obama is one) love terrorists and hate America. What horrific utterance did the president commit in order to earn this (self) righteous condemnation? It was a little statement he made at the National Prayer Breakfast:
Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history. And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ…. So this is not unique to one group or one religion. There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith.
The National Prayer Breakfast is an event sponsored by the ultra-right wing fundamentalist group known by the appropriately godfatherish name The Family. As usual, the president displayed chutzpah in venturing onto hostile turf and offering an olive branch. And as usual, he was eloquent and insightful. In fact, the more rational observers hailed his address as “brilliant”, “remarkable”, and “a powerful celebration of America’s religious tradition.” Naturally, then, the right-wing fanatics went absolutely apeshit, spewing out an avalanche of straw men, dopey insinuations, references to nutty rumors, and downright lies:
The president’s comments this morning at the prayer breakfast are the most offensive I’ve ever heard a president make in my lifetime. He has offended every believing Christian in the United States. This goes further to the point that Mr. Obama does not believe in America or the values we all share. (Former VA Governor Jim Gilmore)
We all share the values that slavery and slaughter are desirable if done by the right people?
Guess I missed it. When exactly did he “blame the Crusades”?
“Nominal Christian”? Cute. Would you say the same about the pope? It was a pope who spearheaded the Crusades. How much more “true” does it need to be?
Guess I missed it. When exactly did he try to justify horrific acts of barbarism, Islamic or otherwise? But somebody else missed the fact that he did NOT have to go back 1000 years.
Guess I missed it. When exactly did he insult Christians? And why would he do that when he is at least a “nominal Christian” himself?
So Barack Obama, leftwing community organizer and closet theologian, used the National Prayer Breakfast to throw a tu quoque at anyone critical of Islam while continuing to fancy himself as the Pope of Islam (Conservative News)
Gotta admit that “tu quoque” is a level of diction several notches above the Palinesque, but unfortunately we can’t say the same for the content.
Mr. President, you… are damning your reputation as a president and may never hold any regard or esteem of the American people. Then again, perhaps that was always your aim, as you fundamentally transform our beloved Constitutional Republic. (Allen West)
The ever-reliable Mr. West, who presumes to give the “Islamapologist In Chief” a history lesson, also claims that lynchings in America were supported by “Democrat (sic) Christians”.
One evil man had the audacity to attack Christianity and defend Islam in the midst of 3,500 Christians at the recent National Prayer Breakfast… Barack Obama and others like him have a direct connection to evil; whereas too often people serving God are not directly connected to truth. This is why Obama can lie and push his destructive agenda and mercilessly attack our freedoms and sacred institutions. (CNS)
This latter, hilariously enough, appears in a piece titled “Christians, It’s Time to Get Over Your Illusions”.
In the midst of all this sound and fury and manufactured outrage, one little fact was a bit neglected: the president’s observations were absolutely on the mark. Horrific deeds have indeed been committed in the name of Christianity, and just about every other religion that ever has existed. He was right about slavery. He was right about Jim Crow. He was right about the Inquisition. And yes, despite the current tide of trendy historical revisionism, he was even right about the Crusades.
But these episodes are only a sampling of the violence that has been performed in the name of Christianity. We touched upon this in a recent discussion (“The Christian Persecution Complex, and the Myth of the School Prayer Ban”), though it really was just scratching the surface. During the interval of time between Christianity’s coming to power in the Fourth Century, and up to the modern age, there has been an average of one major episode of Christian barbarism every 15 to 20 years. And these are just the major episodes, most of which were massive campaigns that claimed the lives of many victims.
One of these was a campaign by England to “civilize” non-Christians in Ireland by slaughtering tens of thousands of them. One of the commanders of the forces, Humphrey Gilbert, ordered that
the heads of all those (of what sort soever they were) which were killed in the day, should be cut off from their bodies… and should be laid on the ground by each side of the way … (to cause) great terror to the people when they saw the heads of their dead fathers, brothers, children, kinsfolk, and friends on the ground.
And if you’re a fan of Fox “News”, you might have been under the impression that ISIS invented beheading.
As for the beloved Crusades, one (Christian) chronicler of the noble exploits recorded that during one particular siege the noble Crusaders
did no other harm to the women found in [the enemy’s] tents—save that they ran their lances through their bellies
How very Christian of them to be such gentlemen. Makes you wonder what kind of harm they’d been doing to other females they’d encountered.
You might object that some of these episodes were not of a particularly religious nature, or that there were sometimes other motives in addition to religious ones. True, but the point is that these horrible deeds were committed by Christians. Or at least nominal Christians. Furthermore Christian beliefs were often cited as the justification for atrocities, even when they actually may have been committed for other reasons. The very fact that dogma can be considered a justification for savagery is itself a damning indictment of a social order dominated by religious fanaticism.
I’ve always been fond of Philip Roth’s short story Defender of the Faith, in which a Jewish army sergeant decides to crack down on one of his fellow Jewish soldiers because he realizes that defending his religion entails defending it not only from the outside but from the inside. That’s a lesson that many Christians don’t want to learn; but President Obama seems to understand perfectly. If you’re a Christian, perhaps you should ask yourself which sentiment you’d rather have expressing your religious values to the world: (a) “I’m appalled by the things some Christians have done, and I pledge to do better’; or (b) “Atrocities? You’re talking about history. You obviously hate Christianity and hate America.”
In writing for Time about the Bizarro Planet reaction to the the president’s speech, Eric Yoffie notes
One would think that both religious and political conservatives would have applauded the President’s remarks, which celebrated American religion and affirmed the centrality of religion in American society.
And he goes on to ask why such “self-evident” truths should be considered the least bit controversial. He chalks it up to Christian “denial”, and that probably is indeed one factor. But the reaction was probably at least as much political as religious. In other words, it was yet another manifestation of Obama Derangement Syndrome, the obsession with trying to make a scandal out of absolutely anything and everything the current president says or does.
It’s certainly not unheard of for presidents to spark controversy when they’re caught telling lies. But Barack Obama very well might be the first politician in history to possess the uncanny power to generate controversy and cause reactionary heads to explode just by telling the self-evident truth.
Absolutely true! What the President wanted to do, was make a point about the fact that virtually all major religions had done atrocities in the name of their God! Whether some these people were real Christians or not, is besides the point–at the times of their atrocities many of them absolutely believed in the Divine nature of the theological viewpoints which justified their violent actions. So, although no truly religious person might ever rationalize or recommend using violence in order to be “righteous,” it has been various religions themselves who have historically approved of these acts of Barbarism. Those who did them, may also have felt that they were being true Christians? So President Obama’s effort to level the theological playing field was much needed, but not much approved of.
Of course for most Christians it would be inconceivable to think that the Jesus whose acts of mercy and forgiveness which inspired so many, would approve of such violence–but that doesn’t stop those who want to pervert his spiritual message, (or Muhammed’s) from using their own perversions of faith to perpetrate their evils. And, it doesn’t stop such offenders from using Christianity, Islam, Buddha, or Krishna, to find ways to justify their evil actions by twisting and misrepresenting their spiritual teachings–all of which are central to the many and various kinds, of Holy texts, which their teachings represent.
I think it’s obviously true that throughout human history, people all over the world have used religions to dominate and abuse others. But I also believe its obvious that the founders of these faiths had no such intentions in mind when delivering their messages of love, compassion, and forgiveness. Yet somehow, just because our President has the intelligence and courage, to point out that, monsters like ISIS have existed in all forms of faiths, and that therefore, it’s really people using religion who commit atrocities, not religions themselves—no matter what their religious backgrounds may be–somehow this simple truth has been conveniently forgotten by members of all these faiths when used to condemn the truth, and now to condemn President Obama as well!
It’s so tiring to continually hear conservative dogmatists, distort nearly everything the President says, and, it’s even more disturbing that these rabid ideologues find such a large and willing audience available and ready to suck up their distortions no matter what they say! Just because one has faith, does not require one to turn a blind eye towards the misuses and abuses of his or her own religion–as repeatedly committed by many unscrupulous religious leaders in the past. Nor does anyone seeking faith require that they have a need to deny history!
If the world is ever going to come together, that means we all must lose our illusion about being the unique disseminators of the only true faith, and of being the lone spiritual policemen fighting against every evil act done by (others). None of our faiths are free from having checkered pasts or ugly histories, but we all knew beforehand that the President would be thrown to the wolves on this one, after making that open admission anyway— as the President himself must also have known!
Those Christians who feel persecuted by the separation of church and State, just don’t get it! If any theocratic forms of government are allowed to rule the roost, then they will have the power to put down any other conceptions of faith. Unfortunately, so many have been spoon fed the notion that preventing religious viewpoints from dominating our classrooms, especially their kind of religious views–are attempts to merely deny their first Amendment freedoms—not essential attempts to enforce the First Amendment—that they just can’t see the forest for the trees! And although today’s Christians may not desire to behead or torture others, the lessons of history is clear—all great faiths have been used to rationalize unspeakable cruelty and to facilitate human greed—and if ANY religious faith seeks to dominate ANY government, that faith will eventually try to control or subjugate all of those who don’t agree with it. Christ would not, Buddah would not, Mohammed would not, and Krishna, etc., would not want to see this happen, but we poor, corruptible and easily fooled human beings would eventually find ways to misuse everything said by these great men—despite the unmistakably loving and transcendent nature of their teachings—often made at times when sadistic and cruel behavior are the norms displayed by those who don’t seem to understand!
Everything the President said was true. His political opponents don’t care about the truth, unless it can be used against the President.
Mr. Heal did make a valid point, though, and I am disappointed you ignored it.
If we are going to argue that the members of Islamic terror groups are not true Muslims, despite all the imans and ayatollahs who claim otherwise, then to avoid a double standard we must also allow that Christians who commit violent acts are not themselves true Christians, despite all the priests and popes who say otherwise.
I can’t speak for Obama, but as far as I’m concerned, the real question is not whether anyone is a “true” Christian or Muslim — as I’ve indicated, I don’t feel qualified to make such a determination, as both religions involve an assortment of creeds that Christians or Muslims may or may not adhere to. The real point is whether the violent acts represent MOST (purported) Christians or Muslims. Which of course they don’t. And while Mr. Heal might have a perfectly valid point about double standards (there’s probably some overcompensation by what is rather inappropriately labeled “political correctness”), my problems with his comment are (a) the arrogant use of “nominal Christian”; (b) his claim that Obama is “continually” insisting terrorists are not “true” Muslims. (He might use that word occasionally, but more often that’s just how the haters spin it — compare the title of an article in The Washington Times to his actual comments cited in the article http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/1/obama-says-terrorists-not-motivated-true-islam/print/) (c) that he seems to be suggesting the Crusades were a fringe movement like ISIS. They were in fact quite mainstream. That, if anything, is my definition of “true” religion.
As you say, I guess I missed all that. In reading his tweet with no preconceived bias and taking his words at face value, I found it to be mild and reasonable compared to the other examples you gave. I wouldn’t even call it criticism.
I don’t detect any arrogance in his use of the word nominal; how do you know he didn’t mean it in the engineering sense of being according to plan — ie, normal — rather than insignificant or trifling? That was how I took it.
His use of continually strikes me as more hyperbolic than literal, but no matter how many times Obama or his supporters have actually said it, they apparently believe it, and I for one applaud their courage. Crusades begin when we dehumanize our adversaries, and one way of doing so is to state or imply that everyone in that society believes as the terrorists do. In saying no, they don’t, Obama is trying to prevent this. Mr. Heal just wanted Obama to also remind people that the historical Crusades were not based on Christian doctrine but were political affairs that ran contrary to that doctrine, and that people who condemn Christianity for the sake of the Crusades are engaging in the same form of dehumanization.
And speaking of Crusades, neither does Mr. Heal say anything that would lead me to believe that he suggests the Crusades were fringe movements. He mentioned the Crusades because Obama himself used them as an example of when a society’s sinful tendency perverted and distorted its faith. He didn’t object to Obama’s use of that example as others did; he just wished Obama had made more clear that the Crusades did not represent true Christianity any more than ISIS represents true Islam.
It seems to me that you read into his tweet more than was really there, simply because he had not voiced agreement with Obama but instead voiced misgivings about the clarity of his message.
Taking his words at face value, Heal is at best nonsensical. He upbraids Obama for not pointing out that the Crusades did not represent “true” Christianity, without offering any definition of that word. But since he is using it in context of Obama’s admonitions not to judge all Muslims by the actions of a handful of extremists, one must infer that “true” is meant to be synonymous with “mainstream”. In which case Heal is comparing apples and oranges. And by the way, although it’s a good point that one must apply the same standards to all religions, I hardly think it necessary, given the president’s target audience, that he emphasize that not all Christians support violence any more than all Muslims do.
I might add that when people say something is not “true” Christianity, my assumption is that they mean it is not in line with the purported teachings of Jesus. On that point I certainly will not argue. In fact, Nietzsche may have been at least partially right when he said the only “true” Christian died on the cross.
Nietzsche also described Christianity as the religion of the Slave, and that the man who would be a Master would repudiate its message of love for all men. (Yes, he also said a Master could be kind to Slaves, but only because as a Master he had the power to do so, not because he was expected to out of some obligation to his fellow man. A Master who didn’t treat Slaves well wasn’t a bad Master anymore than one who did was a good Master.)
Yes, I see you said “partially right”, but while one can argue that Christ set an impossibly high standard that no one but Him could reach, in fact what He asked is not all that difficult: forgive others and help others. Most of us do that; maybe not consistently, but we try, and generally we succeed when and where we can. That’s all that Christ expected of us, that we try to live as He taught. In that sense, most of us really are “true” Christians, even atheists.
When calling the President a nominal Christian, isn’t Mr. Heal really insulting the President for not practicing his faith as it (should) be practiced by pious devotees of (true) Christianity? And isn’t this an effort to portray him as an ignoramus who really cares very little about Christian beliefs.
There is no reason that the President must always inject phrases like “true Christians,” or “no true Christian would,” whenever he mentions this topic. His intentions were clearly to provide an example of ways in which the Christian message has been distorted and perverted just as Muhammad’s message is now being distorted and perverted in the name of ISIS.
Yes, it is perfectly understandable to assume that the President was not trying to furnish excuses for Muslim extremists, or to degrade and insult Christianity. What he did was to use an historic example or atrocities committed by self-described Christians, in order to level the ideological and theological playing fields—just saying that Christians have also committed violence is not a cut on Christianity, but rather a way to put the actions of terrorists into perspective, so that we will not continue to stereotype all Muslims as barbarians. If we don’t come to this understanding then it will become far too easy for extremists in other faiths to add to the polarization of those people who are affected by Al Qaeda and ISIS, and then transform themselves into fanatics, following the same patterns of behavior. I think the President is absolutely correct to try and edify the public at this point, since real understanding has always resulted in defusing polarization, and preventing violent backlash from those who might otherwise be offended. Although many hate crimes are still being perpetrated by people in this day and age who call themselves Christians, this this fact should not be omitted from ancient history in order not to diminish the spiritual uniqueness that many Christians, (or those in many other organized faith) feel, and it should be accompanied by recognizing what are the actual teachings of their founders, and ICONs really taught.
The President’s words were not an attack on the many Christians who never do violent acts in the name of their faiths. And, I think we are all aware that today’s Christians do not support beheadings and lynchings in the name of Christ, but in order to cease stereotyping all Muslims as terrorists, we must all be aware of the unfortunate paths followed by many Christians between the 11th and 13th century and, exhibit a bit of philosophical humility by realizing that those of us who are devoted Christians once waked a very similar path. The phrase really should be, “peace, love and understanding,” not, “peace, love and self-righteous condemnation.”
We should also note that there have been many attempts by Muslim leaders, to explain that what groups like ISIS do, is a perversion of Islam and does not represent the Islamic faith. And from what I have read, and the educational channel documentaries I have seen, Mohammed sincerely preferred compromise over war, and truly wanted to spread a message of nonviolence and peace to his followers.
Likewise although the overall history of Christians may have been marred by those that perverted Christianity, the net history of the Christian faith has indicated the presence of many people espousing that faith who understand the value of love, mercy, forgiveness and charity. But, to use a cliche–there are always a few rotten apples in the barrel–and those rotten apples can sometimes succeed in rationalizing violence and aggression to the point where many believers are willing to accept their lies.
My main complaint about Christianity is actually that there are so many people throughout history who eagerly suck up any current lies or distortions of a faith that was intended to convey the exact opposite. This can happen in any faith which then constitutes the real failings of those faiths—the fact that they can so easily be used to convince the rank and file, that its alright to do horrible things in the name of piety, God, or faith. they ought really to do everything possible to teach the falseness of this idea, and to ensure that various Christian churches, (effectively) convey this message to all of their members.
If anything ALL our major religions have been used by individuals who seek to gain power and influence, as well by a few who really believe various perverted versions of them, and thus all faiths have fallen short of really spreading the messages their founder intended.
Whether Muslims commit more violence than Christians is besides the point. The President merely wanted to point out those who commit violence in the name of religion are found everywhere, and it’s false to think that any of them is unique, considering that they all can be used by greedy leaders to justify violence and aggression–or at least by unscrupulous, biased individuals or groups, who only want to use them as means to an end.
However, just as I do not consider the Westboro Baptist Church to represent true Christianity, despite their claims that they do, I also cannot believe that terrorist groups which use the Islamic faith as their justifications, in any way represent the real principles passed on by Mohammed. Some leaders in that faith have actually stated that ISIS is not only a completely false example of what Muslims believe, but also that ISIS is not even a religious group at all—only a group of heinous and violent thugs, who know that they can use the Islamic faith to justify their behavior and attract those who don’t know any better–in order to use religion as merely a means to and. Just as the Westboro group seemed to justify its political ambitions by concocting a false image of what Christians should believe.
If the question is, are religions really capable of using their creeds in support of violence against others, or are they just being perverted by power driven opportunists who want to use them as means to an
end, or whether true Christians actually tolerate such perversions, I would have to make two points. First, that since Christ’s message was the direct opposite of those seeking to use Christianity in the service of power, greed and ambition, of course a “true Christian,”could never justify committing violence in the name of Christ. And, I also agree that the term “true Christian,” means fundamentally, any person who follows the actual teachings of Christ as best they can–not someone swayed by a doctrine that does not even honor the spirit of Christs teachings, of love, non-violence, universal charity, forgiveness, etc. etc. etc. However, the point should also be made that there also have been many people who are able and willing, to justify violent wars in the names of various religions and their founders–spreading the illusion that certain faiths support those wars.
What disturbs me is the concocted connections between using violence in order to gain power and influence, and the idea that doing so in the name of religion can be used as justification for committing atrocities in the name of “righteousness.” Yes, a “true,” Christian or Muslim would really believe such things. But here are so many ways that power hungry leaders can pervert spiritual messages in order to motivate ordinary members of their faiths to accept and act upon such perversions, that the distorted image of what those religions stand for actually does enable them to be used by politically motivated leaders, to spread their corrupting influences.
Obviously the Crusades were not something that Christ would approve of, or that many sincere believers of that time would have either. Yet how can religious convictions ever be completely and historically divorced from the ways that violence was justified? How and why, were so many ordinary people convinced to accept the view that somehow mass violence used to “regain” the Holy land was something Jesus would approve of? Church leaders may have been using his name falsely as a means to justify an end, but are we to believe that the armies sent to do those Churches bidding, were not composed of many warriors who actually DID believe in their divine right to exact vengeance as soldiers of Christ? The answer has much to do with the fact that just as political parties and ideological affiliations are used to justify war, religions are also regarded as powers that can effectively unite large groups of people to obey any perverted creed, that is said to be justified by Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc.
During the 1960s the recording artist, Buffy St. Marie, and also, I think, Joan Baez, sang in moving ways about the “universal soldier,” who is truly foundational in allowing those with power and influence to fight wars in the names of political ideology, religious fervor, or in support of greedy ambitions. The common soldier has always been persuaded to donate his body for the use various leaders in order to fight and kill in the name of some powerful and persuasive cause. It was also around that time when Jim Jones, was able to convince hundreds of his followers to drink poison kool aid and become martyrs for his religious movement in order to defy government authorities. The phase, “Do you accept my invitation to a kool-aid party?” was often used by those engaging in macabre humor in order to joke about Mr. Jones. This of course had little or nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus, but had much more in common with the ambitions of Jim Jones and other corrupt religious figures who somehow succeeded in hypnotizing their followers into believing in, and obeying them, unconditionally. So, in a similar way, although the founders of the world’s great religions would have nothing to do with any type of movement which would condone murder or suicide, political ideology and various movements launched in the name of religion, have always seemed to have no problems enlisting the unconditional loyalty of masses of people who eagerly agree to do their biddings.
What I’m saying is, even though they are ideally not intended to justify violence, nonetheless religions have always been used to rationalize the behavior of greedy leaders who voraciously enlist many followers. This really means it’s irrelevant to blame perversions of faith as basing the real culprit, rather than the true essence of those faiths–because regardless, faith in God of many kinds, has always been used as a trumpet call to justify violence—at least in the sense that millions of people have actually swallowed the religiously justified call they have been given—hook, line and sinker–even when knowing the words Jesus used when taken away by Roman soldiers in the Garden of Gethsemane—“He who lives by the sword will die by the sword.”
Somewhere along the line, all major religions have failed to really transmit the messages of non-violence that their founders intended, and instead have (at various times), conveyed the fact that obedience to the wishes of various power hungry leaders is somehow virtuous—even if it meant reclaiming the Holy land by killing thousands of people over several centuries. And the fact that many average people have really believed that their religious leaders are justified in motivating them to follow such perversions of faith, means that religion (or the perversion of it), has been successfully used to perpetrate atrocities. But, how else can you categorize what was behind such violence without referring to the historical mobilization of large numbers of people on the basis of fulfilling some righteous divine mission? I imagine the same goes for some of those enlisted by ISIS who have come to believe that a heavenly harem awaits them, after detonating a bomb and blowing large numbers of infidels, (and themselves) into oblivion.
Even if the true natures of many large faiths absolutely oppose using any violence at all, the fact is that our erroneous ideas about religious faith, have been used to motivate many of our fellow human beings into engaging in violence on the basis that their particular religions approve–just as we have used the principles of Democracy to justify so many chauvinist military incursions that result in the deaths of our young men—in ways that are not really necessary to attain virtue. Semantic arguments used to describe whether religions are really to “blame” or not, can still not deny that specific christian religions have been used to justify violence in the same way as Islam has—just as communism, democracy, or allegiance to a dictator, have all been used as a means to an end, that justifies using all sorts of atrocities to destroy our fellow men.
Yes, a “true,” Christian or Muslim would really believe such things, should have been written instead as:
Yes, a “true,” Christian or Muslim would (NEVER) really believe such things.
Conservatives are trying to manufacture yet another “scandal” involving the President:
What I like is this part: “Hersh based his report on a single, anonymous source.”
I don’t know about you, but I’m very very curious about the identity of that source.
Granted, but that he would accept the word of a single, uncorroborated source does not speak well for either his journalistic integrity or his journalistic skill.
Obviously the source was Elvis Presley, who we informed ones know for sure was in the compound with Bin Laden that night. Only a fool would deny it!
Apparently Obama wasn’t satisfied with just taking credit for capturing Osama Bin Laden–he’s also been busy killing cops in Mississippi!
Wow, this site is under ISIS controlled mind or what ?? The Muslim and Islam, attacked Europe first in a Jihad back in the year 600 to 1100, until the reached St. Peters , Before deciding to start a Crusade to Reclaim Israel, Period, End of Story…98 % of Christianty was reached trough Priest and Pilgrims, not wars or “Crusade”, Period , End of Story. Islam was increased to Torture and Rape, and Childbirth, even in the Shitbook “Quran” and Terrorist Islamic “Laws” if you are born by a Shif followers of Satans Book , you are automatic a Muslim WTF ?? Exactly, they are forcing a Sect to Continue by Birth not by Wisdom… Since they force you to even remember the Quran WTF ?? and if you miss a word you get punished , raped ,torture or even death, non of that in Christianty or even Judaism… Islam is nothing more, than a Satan Sect… Grow a brain…Even that shithead Muhammed , Started Jihad, and continue with his Satan Vision, and create the Quran as he waged War, None of that in Neither Judaism or Christianity… Go , Reread History and stop Chanting Satans Book, And for the Record Muhammed had NIGHTMARES from the agee 5 to around teenage year, is that something a God would do ?? Create , Nightmares ?? no exactly…
This is the kind of comment that normally would never be approved for posting, as it has absolutely nothing of value to offer. Except that it does starkly illustrate the typical mentality of Obama attackers. Sad, but true.