I like Bill O’Reilly, but he can sometimes be foolish. At the moment, he has been waging a campaign against what he calls “the war on Christmas.” And while I sympathize with his motives, his arguments occasionally veer off track.
For instance, Bill has been saying that Christianity is a “philosophy.” To be sure, he admits it is a religion, but then he points to Thomas Jefferson as an example of someone for whom he claims it was a philosophy.
This, however, is sophistry. Christianity has dominated Western religious thought for nearly two millennia. As such, it has influenced many philosophers. But that does not convert the religion into a political philosophy. As for Jefferson, he was a deist who would surely admit that his governmental ideas were molded by Judeo-Christian virtues.
Nor need we in the United States be ashamed to admit our specifically Christian roots. I am not a Christian, but I honor the Christian convictions of many of our Founders precisely because these served to shape important values built into our Constitution.
Which brings me back to Christmas. Recently I was on a radio program where the host asked me how I felt about Christmas. My unhesitating response was that I love Christmas. Indeed, I have always loved Christmas—ever since I was a small boy.
You see, Christmas is a religious holiday, but it is also a secular holiday. This may sound like a contradiction, yet it is not. The holiday that we know clearly honors the birth of Jesus Christ. This does not, however, prevent it from celebrating the winter solstice or our joint humanity.
As many readers know, the Christmas tree tradition goes back to pagan times. The evergreen was, and is, a symbol that life endures even when winter has the world in its icy grip. All those decorations we add have nothing to do with Christianity per se, except to associate the religion with a miraculous birth—one many believe redeemed humankind.
And as for Santa Claus, growing up in Brooklyn I had no idea that “Santa” was another way of saying, “saint.” Actually I also knew he was called “Saint Nicholas,” but this suggested no religions connotations to me. He was simply a jolly old man who brought presents to good little boys and girls.
No, Christmas is an American tradition, not just a Christian one. Nonetheless, some people think that “tradition” is a bad thing. They associate it with slavery and the Inquisition. These people are right to believe that some customs should be jettisoned, but they are wrong to think all deserve to be.
Not long ago, my wife and I attended “Dear Santa” a chorus presented by the KSU University and Alumni Choir. It was beautiful; so beautiful that my eyes watered over. Moreover, some of the songs, like Silver Bells, were secular, while others, such as Silent Night, were religiously oriented.
Why, I ask, should I, or others, be denied this pleasure? Why, because some of this music is derived from a religious tradition, should I have to forego the emotional resonance built into compositions by men and women who were motivated by spiritual sentiments?
The same logic applies to Christmas trees, Christmas lights, and Christmas presents. Were these forced on me, I might object. But they are not forced on me, even when promoted by government entities. The fact that there is a manger scene in the public square in no way impinges on my freedom to believe what I wish.
So, to repeat myself, I love the Christmas traditions. They may sometimes be overdone, but I have even come to enjoy the commercialization of Christmas. These practices represent a communal coming together that benefits us all—if for no other reason than they promote “good will toward man (and woman).”
Hence I say “Merry Christmas to all,” and please feel free to wish me the same.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Landslide Lyndon...er, Obama
When Lyndon Johnson won election to the presidency on his own, he obtained the landslide victory he had been denied the first time he was elected to congress. This provided him the mandate to pass the voting rights and poverty legislation that had only been proposed during the Kennedy administration.
Barack Obama seems to imagine that he has acquired an equally decisive mandate with his election to a second term. Although his margin of victory over Mitt Romney was less than that over John McCain, he appears to have decided this is enough to steamroller the Republicans.
With little over a two percent surplus and entire sections of the nation (most notably the entire south) aligned against him, he has nonetheless concluded he was authorized to transform the country.
Already it is clear that those observers who thought his reelection would have a salutary effect on our chief executive have been proven wrong. Barack is not about to become an evenhanded statesman.
Right from the opening bell, our president seems determined to demonstrate his lack of moderation. This is odd, because didn’t he, in fact, spend the better part of a year advocating a “balanced approach” to tackling the deficit; one in line with what the Simpson-Bowles Commission recommended?
Yet, as I recall, its leaders advocated a three-to-one ratio of spending cuts to tax increases. Now our president is demanding, not asking for, a three-to-one ratio the other way. And, oh by the way, he refuses to be specific about what spending cuts—if any—he would approve.
His number one non-negotiable demand, of course, is to raise taxes on the upper two percent of income earners. This is defended as a necessary step toward fiscal “fairness.” It is also endorsed as an essential tool in lowering the national deficit.
But let us look at the real possibilities. On the one hand, if income tax rates go up on those earning over 250 thousand a year, it is unlikely that revenues will increase very much. Indeed, if history is a guide, they may actually decrease. In this case, the deficit will not be reduced one whit.
On the other hand, if revenues do increase substantially, this will largely be at the expense of small business owners. In this case, hiring will be adversely affected and the unemployment rate will rise. We might even enter a renewed recession.
So what should Republicans do? Should they attempt to prevent what they have good reason to believe is bad public policy; then get the political blame for their principled stand. Or should they let the president own the consequences of his over-reaching?
In either case, with our national debt still soaring, after thirty short years, one hundred percent of the federal budget will go entirely for interest payments. My twenty something KSU students, i.e., the one’s who will be most hurt by such a development, think this is a long way off, but it is not.
Barack Obama keeps kicking the deficit disaster down the road, perhaps in the hope this will force our country to adopt his collectivist solutions. Nevertheless, the end result will probably be domestic poverty and international impotence.
Perhaps Obama is actually a reincarnation of France’s king Louis XV. This monarch was the one who allegedly said “après moi le deluge.” After all, Barack knows that in four more years whatever problems he creates will be someone else’s responsibility.
He may even be hoping that the rescue operation is assigned to Republicans who will then bare the onus for the medicine they administer. The immediate question, however, is should the Republicans accept the current blame. Or should they stand back as Obama mistakenly implements policies for which he does not have the authority he thinks he has?
In any event, batten down the hatches. A harsh wind is blowing out of Washington; one that may flatten many houses before it subsides.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Barack Obama seems to imagine that he has acquired an equally decisive mandate with his election to a second term. Although his margin of victory over Mitt Romney was less than that over John McCain, he appears to have decided this is enough to steamroller the Republicans.
With little over a two percent surplus and entire sections of the nation (most notably the entire south) aligned against him, he has nonetheless concluded he was authorized to transform the country.
Already it is clear that those observers who thought his reelection would have a salutary effect on our chief executive have been proven wrong. Barack is not about to become an evenhanded statesman.
Right from the opening bell, our president seems determined to demonstrate his lack of moderation. This is odd, because didn’t he, in fact, spend the better part of a year advocating a “balanced approach” to tackling the deficit; one in line with what the Simpson-Bowles Commission recommended?
Yet, as I recall, its leaders advocated a three-to-one ratio of spending cuts to tax increases. Now our president is demanding, not asking for, a three-to-one ratio the other way. And, oh by the way, he refuses to be specific about what spending cuts—if any—he would approve.
His number one non-negotiable demand, of course, is to raise taxes on the upper two percent of income earners. This is defended as a necessary step toward fiscal “fairness.” It is also endorsed as an essential tool in lowering the national deficit.
But let us look at the real possibilities. On the one hand, if income tax rates go up on those earning over 250 thousand a year, it is unlikely that revenues will increase very much. Indeed, if history is a guide, they may actually decrease. In this case, the deficit will not be reduced one whit.
On the other hand, if revenues do increase substantially, this will largely be at the expense of small business owners. In this case, hiring will be adversely affected and the unemployment rate will rise. We might even enter a renewed recession.
So what should Republicans do? Should they attempt to prevent what they have good reason to believe is bad public policy; then get the political blame for their principled stand. Or should they let the president own the consequences of his over-reaching?
In either case, with our national debt still soaring, after thirty short years, one hundred percent of the federal budget will go entirely for interest payments. My twenty something KSU students, i.e., the one’s who will be most hurt by such a development, think this is a long way off, but it is not.
Barack Obama keeps kicking the deficit disaster down the road, perhaps in the hope this will force our country to adopt his collectivist solutions. Nevertheless, the end result will probably be domestic poverty and international impotence.
Perhaps Obama is actually a reincarnation of France’s king Louis XV. This monarch was the one who allegedly said “après moi le deluge.” After all, Barack knows that in four more years whatever problems he creates will be someone else’s responsibility.
He may even be hoping that the rescue operation is assigned to Republicans who will then bare the onus for the medicine they administer. The immediate question, however, is should the Republicans accept the current blame. Or should they stand back as Obama mistakenly implements policies for which he does not have the authority he thinks he has?
In any event, batten down the hatches. A harsh wind is blowing out of Washington; one that may flatten many houses before it subsides.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, December 15, 2012
A Ring of Fire
Two weeks ago when I implied that Islam might not be a religion of peace, I agitated a hornet’s nest. More than one reader came to the conclusion that I was a narrow-minded bigot. After all, only a mean-spirited racist could suggest any such thing.
Nevertheless, this is a serious question. With Israel again under violent assault, with Egypt being torn asunder by ferocious street demonstrations, and with Syrians killing tens of thousands of their own, is there something about Islam that encourages this belligerence?
Over a decade ago the late political scientist Samuel Huntington observed that there was a ring of fire surrounding Islamic lands. He noted that almost everywhere Muslim territories abutted non-Muslim ones there were violent clashes.
Today this remains true. Not just Israel, but places as far removed as West Africa and the Philippines have witnessed Muslims killing non-Muslims in the name of their religion. Indeed, the list is long one.
We can begin with Nigeria where Muslims have been burning the churches and massacring the inhabitants of Christian towns. Then we can move north to Egypt where the Coptic Christians are under attack by supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood.
If we travel even further north, we encounter the Chechnyan’s engaged in guerrilla warfare against the Russians. Now heading east we find the Chinese periodically needing to suppress the ambitions of Sinkiang Muslims. Turning south, the Pakistanis continue to harbor terrorists who intermittently cross to the border to slaughter the hated Indians.
Resuming our journey east, we discover Thai Muslims at violent odds with their central government and Mindanao Muslims defying the Christian rulers of their Island nation. Even the Indonesians have had their quarrels with the Portuguese and Australians.
Nor have I yet mentioned the Iranians who seem eager to destroy the power of the United States or Osama bin Laden of al Qaeda who wanted to re-conquer Spain and the Balkans in order to restore the Muslim Caliphate to its former glory.
It may be noted here that the enemies of Islam include not just Christians and Jews, but also Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists. Simply refusing to acknowledge the supremacy of Mohamed seems ample pretext for Jihad.
It may, of course, be argued that Christianity too has sponsored violence. And it certainly has. The Catholic Church organized crusades and inquisitions, while Catholics and Protestants butchered each other in holy wars. The difference is that that was hundreds of years ago. Modern Christianity has no such impulses.
Many Islamic lands, in contrast, are currently mired in a medieval mentality. They do not promote religious tolerance, but instead call Jews monkeys who must be killed on sight and condemn Muslim apostates to death for the sin of changing religion.
Then too there are all of those suicide bombers who cheerfully tear their own bodies to shreds on the promise that they will be rewarded with eternal glory in heaven. Yes, some Buddhists have been known to immolate themselves for religious causes, but they are few and far between.
With all this said, it must be acknowledged that many Muslims are peace loving people. Many tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions, of them are not about to become bomb-throwing jihadists. The religion to which they subscribe can be, and for many is, a force for kindness and understanding.
But what is possible is not necessarily customary. Christianity evolved from belligerence to tolerance. So can Islam. But to argue that it has already done so is to ignore the evidence. There have been too many conflicts, in too many places, to conclude that the religion has nothing to do with them.
If Islam is to become a modern tolerant faith, we must stop fooling ourselves. Most Muslims are fundamentally decent human beings, but that does not mean their religion advances the same tenets as held by most Westerners. It is especially imperative that modern-minded Muslims participate in encouraging the necessary changes in attitude.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Nevertheless, this is a serious question. With Israel again under violent assault, with Egypt being torn asunder by ferocious street demonstrations, and with Syrians killing tens of thousands of their own, is there something about Islam that encourages this belligerence?
Over a decade ago the late political scientist Samuel Huntington observed that there was a ring of fire surrounding Islamic lands. He noted that almost everywhere Muslim territories abutted non-Muslim ones there were violent clashes.
Today this remains true. Not just Israel, but places as far removed as West Africa and the Philippines have witnessed Muslims killing non-Muslims in the name of their religion. Indeed, the list is long one.
We can begin with Nigeria where Muslims have been burning the churches and massacring the inhabitants of Christian towns. Then we can move north to Egypt where the Coptic Christians are under attack by supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood.
If we travel even further north, we encounter the Chechnyan’s engaged in guerrilla warfare against the Russians. Now heading east we find the Chinese periodically needing to suppress the ambitions of Sinkiang Muslims. Turning south, the Pakistanis continue to harbor terrorists who intermittently cross to the border to slaughter the hated Indians.
Resuming our journey east, we discover Thai Muslims at violent odds with their central government and Mindanao Muslims defying the Christian rulers of their Island nation. Even the Indonesians have had their quarrels with the Portuguese and Australians.
Nor have I yet mentioned the Iranians who seem eager to destroy the power of the United States or Osama bin Laden of al Qaeda who wanted to re-conquer Spain and the Balkans in order to restore the Muslim Caliphate to its former glory.
It may be noted here that the enemies of Islam include not just Christians and Jews, but also Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists. Simply refusing to acknowledge the supremacy of Mohamed seems ample pretext for Jihad.
It may, of course, be argued that Christianity too has sponsored violence. And it certainly has. The Catholic Church organized crusades and inquisitions, while Catholics and Protestants butchered each other in holy wars. The difference is that that was hundreds of years ago. Modern Christianity has no such impulses.
Many Islamic lands, in contrast, are currently mired in a medieval mentality. They do not promote religious tolerance, but instead call Jews monkeys who must be killed on sight and condemn Muslim apostates to death for the sin of changing religion.
Then too there are all of those suicide bombers who cheerfully tear their own bodies to shreds on the promise that they will be rewarded with eternal glory in heaven. Yes, some Buddhists have been known to immolate themselves for religious causes, but they are few and far between.
With all this said, it must be acknowledged that many Muslims are peace loving people. Many tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions, of them are not about to become bomb-throwing jihadists. The religion to which they subscribe can be, and for many is, a force for kindness and understanding.
But what is possible is not necessarily customary. Christianity evolved from belligerence to tolerance. So can Islam. But to argue that it has already done so is to ignore the evidence. There have been too many conflicts, in too many places, to conclude that the religion has nothing to do with them.
If Islam is to become a modern tolerant faith, we must stop fooling ourselves. Most Muslims are fundamentally decent human beings, but that does not mean their religion advances the same tenets as held by most Westerners. It is especially imperative that modern-minded Muslims participate in encouraging the necessary changes in attitude.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Do We Need a Secular Great Awakening?
I cannot tell you how many times I have heard it. By now it is so many that I have lost count.
Nonetheless almost every time the subject of politics comes us, some student tells me that all politicians lie. Then someone else generally adds, “Everyone lies and everyone cheats.” At this, I am inevitably confronted with a chorus of nodding heads.
Today’s young adults are remarkably cynical. Their convention wisdom has it that almost no one can be trusted. Even when they get caught cheating, they brazenly defend themselves by asserting that this is what everyone does. It is merely the sensible way of getting ahead.
Of course, when I was younger dishonesty was also a problem. Indeed, Billy Joel wrote a song bemoaning the fact that honesty is hardly ever found. Nowadays, however, the acceptance of dishonesty has grown to epic proportions. Just how widespread was demonstrated in the recent election.
Even so, no large-scale society can survive if its members cannot trust one another. Strangers must bestow confidence on those upon whose services they depend lest they perish in their separate hovels.
Once trust becomes problematic, we get the turmoil currently on display in the Middle East. People turn on one another so violently that the only persons they can rely on are members of their own families. They certainly cannot trust politicians.
The United States has largely been spared this fate. With the massive exception of the Civil War and its aftermath, Americans have believed in the dependability of their fellow Americans.
Much of this owes to several historic crusades. Although most contemporaries are unaware of them, the first two Great Awakenings shaped the moral landscape of our nation. Taking place in the eighteenth and ninetieth centuries, these religious revivals encouraged personal rectitude. –And they succeeded.
The first Great Awakening introduced Methodism to America and with it came calls for people to live honest lives. The second Great Awakening reaffirmed this commitment, but also sparked the temperance, suffrage, and abolitionist movements. Evangelists literally crisscrossed the country preaching these virtues to huge crowds.
Today, however, the fires of religious enthusiasm have been banked. Like it or not, we have become a secular nation. This too was demonstrated in the recent election. It revealed that the evangelicals were neither as numerous nor as enthusiastic as necessary to elect the person they favored.
This secular trend is also visible in my Kennesaw State University classrooms. Even though the school is in the heart of what used to be called The Bible Belt, when I ask students how many of them are Protestants, no more than two or three claim they are.
Asked, however, if any are Baptists or Methodists, now the hands go up. In other words, these Protestants do not realize they are Protestants. Nor are they cognizant of the particular dogmas of their denominations. While they typically believe in God, their faith is diffuse and not very deep.
If this is correct, then a new religious revival cannot be expected to generate the same results as the earlier exemplars. Yet we may need something similar. Hopefully there are moral principles to which both religious and secular individuals can strive to realize—that is, once reminded of them.
It would also be nice if one of these principles were honesty. Over the last several days I have been speaking to liberals and conservatives alike about our current impasse. While they don’t agree on much, one of the things that unites them is a recognition of how dishonest our public discourse has become.
Naturally, fervent partisans view the truth differently. Still, there are truths out there upon which most of us can agree if we have the integrity, and the diligence, to examine things as they are—not merely as we would like them to be. Yes, the truth can hurt, but falsehoods hurt even more.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Nonetheless almost every time the subject of politics comes us, some student tells me that all politicians lie. Then someone else generally adds, “Everyone lies and everyone cheats.” At this, I am inevitably confronted with a chorus of nodding heads.
Today’s young adults are remarkably cynical. Their convention wisdom has it that almost no one can be trusted. Even when they get caught cheating, they brazenly defend themselves by asserting that this is what everyone does. It is merely the sensible way of getting ahead.
Of course, when I was younger dishonesty was also a problem. Indeed, Billy Joel wrote a song bemoaning the fact that honesty is hardly ever found. Nowadays, however, the acceptance of dishonesty has grown to epic proportions. Just how widespread was demonstrated in the recent election.
Even so, no large-scale society can survive if its members cannot trust one another. Strangers must bestow confidence on those upon whose services they depend lest they perish in their separate hovels.
Once trust becomes problematic, we get the turmoil currently on display in the Middle East. People turn on one another so violently that the only persons they can rely on are members of their own families. They certainly cannot trust politicians.
The United States has largely been spared this fate. With the massive exception of the Civil War and its aftermath, Americans have believed in the dependability of their fellow Americans.
Much of this owes to several historic crusades. Although most contemporaries are unaware of them, the first two Great Awakenings shaped the moral landscape of our nation. Taking place in the eighteenth and ninetieth centuries, these religious revivals encouraged personal rectitude. –And they succeeded.
The first Great Awakening introduced Methodism to America and with it came calls for people to live honest lives. The second Great Awakening reaffirmed this commitment, but also sparked the temperance, suffrage, and abolitionist movements. Evangelists literally crisscrossed the country preaching these virtues to huge crowds.
Today, however, the fires of religious enthusiasm have been banked. Like it or not, we have become a secular nation. This too was demonstrated in the recent election. It revealed that the evangelicals were neither as numerous nor as enthusiastic as necessary to elect the person they favored.
This secular trend is also visible in my Kennesaw State University classrooms. Even though the school is in the heart of what used to be called The Bible Belt, when I ask students how many of them are Protestants, no more than two or three claim they are.
Asked, however, if any are Baptists or Methodists, now the hands go up. In other words, these Protestants do not realize they are Protestants. Nor are they cognizant of the particular dogmas of their denominations. While they typically believe in God, their faith is diffuse and not very deep.
If this is correct, then a new religious revival cannot be expected to generate the same results as the earlier exemplars. Yet we may need something similar. Hopefully there are moral principles to which both religious and secular individuals can strive to realize—that is, once reminded of them.
It would also be nice if one of these principles were honesty. Over the last several days I have been speaking to liberals and conservatives alike about our current impasse. While they don’t agree on much, one of the things that unites them is a recognition of how dishonest our public discourse has become.
Naturally, fervent partisans view the truth differently. Still, there are truths out there upon which most of us can agree if we have the integrity, and the diligence, to examine things as they are—not merely as we would like them to be. Yes, the truth can hurt, but falsehoods hurt even more.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Is Barack Obama a Muslim?
A week before the election I participated in a debate at Kennesaw State University where I upheld the Romney side of the argument. This was a great deal of fun until I suggested that Barack Obama felt sympathetic toward Islam and its adherents.
At this, half the audience grew restive. What these people thought they heard me say was that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Now angered by my ignorance and insensitivity, they perceived me as a “birther” who hadn’t the sense to recognize that our president is a Christian.
Barack Obama is indeed a Christian, but that does not preclude his being kindly disposed to Muslims. It must be remembered that his father was a Muslim. To be sure, Barack senior was not very observant; nor was he present to raise his son. Nevertheless his offspring had to be aware of, and respectful to, his father’s religion.
But more than that, Barack’s stepfather was Muslim. So is his sister. In fact, Barack spent many of his formative years in Indonesia associating with Muslims and going to school with them. Indeed, this is where he came to the conclusion that the Muslim morning call to prayer is one of the most beautiful sounds in the world.
Nor did his ostensibly Christian mother or grandparents do much to counteract this influence. While they wanted Barack to identify himself as an American, they were not religious people and hence did not press a Christian point of view upon him.
Is it any wonder then that when he came of college age many of Obama’s closest friends was Pakistanis? He socialized with them, he roomed with them, and he travelled to meet their families in Pakistan. In truth, it was only when he decided that this association would not be good politically that he cut them out of his life.
Christianity did eventually enter Obama’s life-space—but as a calculated decision. Having come to the conclusion that an American Black could not succeed in politics unless he was a Christian, he sought out Black ministers to provide him with a religious education once he moved to Chicago to become a community organizer.
Incidentally, he chose Chicago because it had a Black mayor and therefore appeared to be fertile ground for his ambitions. If this seems cold and calculating, I submit that our president’s political career is replete with evidence of how cold and calculating he can be.
In any event, it was no accident that once in office, he used the bully pulpit to extol the virtues of Islam. He did this in Cairo, in Indonesia, and at the United Nations—where each time he insisted it was a religion of peace. All of this was presumably intended to lessen international tensions, but it was likewise in harmony with his sentiments.
Why does this matter? Why can’t Obama be as approving of Islam as he desires? The answer is that Islamic terrorism remains with us. We have seen it in Benghazi, on the streets of Cairo, and in the violence in Syria. We have especially seen its potential in the nuclear centrifuges of Iran.
Now the Middle East is a tinderbox. Enemies who no longer feel restrained by American power surround Israel. At this point it is difficult to know where events will lead—but a general war is not out of the question.
Meanwhile, on the home front, liberals feel more sympathetic toward the Palestinians than the Israelis. Kim Kardashian discovered this when she tweeted that she was praying for Israel. As a result, she was immediately attacked and instructed that she must pray for the Palestinians instead.
Under these circumstances, where do Barack Obama’s loyalties lie? No doubt, he will be constrained by the political realities of our nation. Nonetheless, what he will do when under fire may be influenced by longstanding patterns of thought and emotion.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
At this, half the audience grew restive. What these people thought they heard me say was that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Now angered by my ignorance and insensitivity, they perceived me as a “birther” who hadn’t the sense to recognize that our president is a Christian.
Barack Obama is indeed a Christian, but that does not preclude his being kindly disposed to Muslims. It must be remembered that his father was a Muslim. To be sure, Barack senior was not very observant; nor was he present to raise his son. Nevertheless his offspring had to be aware of, and respectful to, his father’s religion.
But more than that, Barack’s stepfather was Muslim. So is his sister. In fact, Barack spent many of his formative years in Indonesia associating with Muslims and going to school with them. Indeed, this is where he came to the conclusion that the Muslim morning call to prayer is one of the most beautiful sounds in the world.
Nor did his ostensibly Christian mother or grandparents do much to counteract this influence. While they wanted Barack to identify himself as an American, they were not religious people and hence did not press a Christian point of view upon him.
Is it any wonder then that when he came of college age many of Obama’s closest friends was Pakistanis? He socialized with them, he roomed with them, and he travelled to meet their families in Pakistan. In truth, it was only when he decided that this association would not be good politically that he cut them out of his life.
Christianity did eventually enter Obama’s life-space—but as a calculated decision. Having come to the conclusion that an American Black could not succeed in politics unless he was a Christian, he sought out Black ministers to provide him with a religious education once he moved to Chicago to become a community organizer.
Incidentally, he chose Chicago because it had a Black mayor and therefore appeared to be fertile ground for his ambitions. If this seems cold and calculating, I submit that our president’s political career is replete with evidence of how cold and calculating he can be.
In any event, it was no accident that once in office, he used the bully pulpit to extol the virtues of Islam. He did this in Cairo, in Indonesia, and at the United Nations—where each time he insisted it was a religion of peace. All of this was presumably intended to lessen international tensions, but it was likewise in harmony with his sentiments.
Why does this matter? Why can’t Obama be as approving of Islam as he desires? The answer is that Islamic terrorism remains with us. We have seen it in Benghazi, on the streets of Cairo, and in the violence in Syria. We have especially seen its potential in the nuclear centrifuges of Iran.
Now the Middle East is a tinderbox. Enemies who no longer feel restrained by American power surround Israel. At this point it is difficult to know where events will lead—but a general war is not out of the question.
Meanwhile, on the home front, liberals feel more sympathetic toward the Palestinians than the Israelis. Kim Kardashian discovered this when she tweeted that she was praying for Israel. As a result, she was immediately attacked and instructed that she must pray for the Palestinians instead.
Under these circumstances, where do Barack Obama’s loyalties lie? No doubt, he will be constrained by the political realities of our nation. Nonetheless, what he will do when under fire may be influenced by longstanding patterns of thought and emotion.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
