Get Religion

A superficial grasp of the power of religion is a very dangerous thing

George W. Bush’s devout Christian faith was the source of his great strength and courage; it informed his vision of what is true of the human heart and therefore what is possible when humans live in freedom. Barack H. Obama’s godless intellectualism (and that’s really what his ‘faith’ is—neither Christian nor Muslim nor anything else but an unlimited faith in his own superior mind) conveys sophistication on the surface, but lacks true vision and is both cynical and empty when the going gets tough.

Atheistic thought is frightened into near hysteria by Christian faith, and breathes a deep sigh of relief when any human policy—political, foreign, domestic, social, moral—is set via some notion of secularism. But the extreme irony is that for all the calumny heaped upon Bush, the world, including all the atheists living in it, was a great deal safer with Bush serving as a true leader of the free world. Obama’s godless worldview is creating danger on an unprecedented scale.

Obama’s Cairo speech, the sham election in Iran (and Obama’s reaction to it), and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s ‘two-state’ speech (and the Arab world’s reaction to it) illustrate the dangerous path ahead.

Others have dissected the factual inaccuracies, distortions and half-truths of Obama’s Cairo speech (see here, for an example). What is far more striking to us is the arrogance and naiveté that set up the premise behind the speech—that one man’s biography, Obama’s, can provide the definitive millennial reconciliation of Islam, Judaism and Christianity, and the world can now live happily ever after. The speech displayed a classic intellectual grasp of religion—which is to say, no grasp of the deep significance of theological differences on right vs. wrong.

As Brushfires has stated since the inception of this website:

What people believe God to be, and what they believe themselves to be in relation to God, determines their concept of freedom, virtue, justice and the purpose of life. The ‘war on terror’ may be discussed in terms of economic conditions, number of angry males under age 30, territories, skin color, or oil, but the core conflict is based on radically different views of what God is—and what a man (and woman) created by that God is.

To state what should be obvious but is often unnecessarily confused: a society inspired and governed by a tyrannical, oppressive, proscriptive, violence-condoning, sexist god will be very different than a society inspired and governed by a loving God. And here’s another obvious truth that is to liberals what light is to a vampire: a society inspired and governed by a loving God is better than a society inspired and governed by a tyrannical, oppressive, proscriptive, violence-condoning, sexist god.

Mankind does not want to live under Islamic doctrine and sharia law as directed and controlled by fanatical clerics. When given a chance to live free of these dictates—to be genuinely free as individuals to choose and live their faith to the best of their understanding but not on the threat of stoning and beheading—people inevitably and always choose to live free. And when they are able to do so, there is an inevitable softening of religious doctrines that impose hard lines and intolerance, because it is not the natural condition of the human heart to want to hate, kill and maim others.

This was the foundation of President Bush’s vision for the Middle East. Though couched in terms of bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq and then enabling it to spread throughout the region, its most important dimension was the opportunity it provided to the people of the region to rise above and moderate theological doctrines that would forever hold them back from real progress.

The rabid liberal simpleton would react to all this with “Aha!, this just shows Bush was trying to convert Muslims to Christianity, and this is outrageous and judgmental and shows why he should be tried for war crimes!” No, simpleton, it doesn’t. Iraqis were given freedom to choose and draft their own constitution—in which they chose to identify the country as Islamic. But in practice, and with the help of President Bush’s ‘surge’ strategy, they also chose to move toward habits of political reconciliation rather than suicide bombs to resolve differences. Freedom enabled Iraqis to take hold of and demonstrate a higher view of themselves and their religion.

Guess what? They like it and prefer it, and they do not want to go back to the rule of dictatorship or Islamic radicalism. But whether they will be able to retain their fresh start in freedom and democracy as US troops move out of the country is by no means assured, and this is where Obama’s worldview—especially as applied to Iran— creates such monumental risk for the region and the world.

Iran is of course not a democracy, and the recent election was a sham regardless of any vote count irregularities. The ruling mullahs choose the eligible candidates—not the people—and the candidates do what the mullahs permit them to do. So the election did not present the people with real choice. Yet it is so vividly instructive to see the reaction of the Iranian people when even the illusion of freedom of choice was offered and then cynically denied by what seems to be a preposterous ‘landslide’ for Ahmadinejad. Americans can’t really fathom what courage is involved in taking to the streets as Iranians have done—when the police-state can and does arrest and kill demonstrators. But the yearning for freedom—even in small measures—is inherent in the human heart, and is an extremely powerful force for good when it is allowed expression.

Into all this enters the Obama worldview. He doesn’t know which side of the Iranian situation is the right side. He opts for a ‘principle’ of ‘not meddling’ in other countries’ affairs (tell that to the Israelis!). He sees the inevitability of radical Islamist control of Iran, and sees no difference between the society it fosters vs. the better society that could emerge if even a modicum of freedom is allowed to take hold. His position confers legitimacy on the autocratic rule of the radical mullahs, and stifles the Iranian yearning for freedom. His position directly undercuts the progress of Iraqis by assigning legitimacy and moral equivalence to Iranian theocrats and Iraqi democrats. His position perpetuates and enhances radical Islam and accentuates the irreconcilable nature of Islam and sharia law with Western civilization. His position is a tragedy of ignorance and arrogance—not intelligence—and it will lead to catastrophe.

Then move to the subject of Israel. The Obama administration has been visibly meddling in Israel’s affairs—telling them what they can and can’t do with respect to settlement activities. Despite this meddling, Prime Minister Netanyahu endorsed the vision of an eventual two-state solution—something new for him, at least to so state in public—but made clear that any Palestinian state must recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state (which is what the UN decided decades ago). This was roundly condemned across the Arab world. Think of this! Israel made a demand that its neighbor must swear off any intent to annihilate it—and this is condemned as unreasonable? Yet the Obama worldview continues to portray Israel as the heavy in all this.

There is no way—from this worldview based on a superficial, dismissive attitude toward religion and the abject moral confusion that flows from it—that any framework for lasting peace can emerge. On the contrary, moral confusion almost certainly leads to violence and war as the right ideas struggle for survival.

Obama’s worldview, and in particular his detailed level of confusion as it relates to America, Israel, the Judeo-Christian faith, and Islam were willfully concealed from the American people in the election of 2008. They are now placing this country and the world in great danger. The right course is to remove Obama from office for his fraud, but this takes more fortitude and clarity and conviction and leadership than is currently evident in the Political Class. Pravda would go batty at the very suggestion. So America seems likely to continue down the path of popularity polls vs. tea parties, and Americans will hope that the gains of President Bush in Iraq and the Middle East will hold, and the forces of freedom and democracy will sustain themselves until America and the world have better leaders who, on a deep as well as practical level, get religion.

Paul Gable

Posted June 17, 2009