Sunday, March 2, 2008

Obama and Culture Shock

Coming Soon to an Election Near You
Barack Obama and Islam

[ED. NOTE: Billy Rojas--formerly assigned to the US Navy as an instructor with the USS Enterprise--sent us this article on Friday and we decided to post it on Sunday, a day when more people will have the time to consider its relevant questions.

It has since appeared at several locations on the Internet. Rojas, who has his own page on the Islam Watch website, agreed to write an exclusive DBKP introduction to the article, which touches on a number of important points about Barack Obama and his Muslim connections and what it all might mean for America.]


This article was written with two objectives clearly in mind:First, there is a need for a factual overview of all legitimate Obama connections to Islam.

As the Washington Post reported in a front page news story on February 29, the Web is awash with dubious allegations, rumors based on half truths, and unresearched allegations.

It really does no-one the least good to give credence to such material and can easily have the effect of discrediting the genuine concern that millions of Americans have about Obama and Islam. And, after all, almost every day Muslims are in the news, somewhere, attacking America either verbally or with bombs.

Secondly, a very compelling case can be made to distrust Obama's positions on religion generally and on Islam specifically. This is very much needed as an antidote to what amounts to an "religious revival" now sweeping the Democratic Party, misleading multitudes in the process.

The Obama bubble has to be made to burst before it causes serous political damage everywhere.

A very strong case can be made that has the effect of showing exactly where to be most concerned about Obama , objectively, in ways that the MSM cannot deny.

So far, because so much of the material critical of the Senator is based on inadequate understanding of Islam--sometimes of Christianity, for that matter--the TV networks and almost all of the big city newspapers have been able to dismiss these criticisms. The objective of "Obama and Culture Shock" is to provide people with solid grounds for criticisms that can withstand any test.

There also are political considerations. While a bad fall for Obama can be seen as beneficial to Hillary Clinton, it is just as likely that making Obama and Islam into a public issue would also have the effect of exposing Hillary's ignorance of the subject and possibly prompt her to make her own ill-advised comments. You don't need
to guess that under no circumstances would I vote for either.

As a former teacher of Comparative Religion and related fields, I think I have the kind of knowledge base that is required. Indeed, I cringed recently, listening to Bay Buchanan trying to grapple with the question of Obama's links to Islam. Even someone as obviously bright and informed as she is, simply had no idea how to deal with the topic and essentially floundered miserably about it on national TV.

We can do better than that, can't we?

There is much more to say about Islam and Obama but the article gets us into the most important basics. It is, hopefully you will agree, a sound place to begin and upon which to start to build a persuasive case in opposition to the candidacy of Barack Obama, someone whose policies , if he became president, assuredly would cause far more harm to our country than anything else,

As a bachelor in good standing I am free to indulge in as many harem fantasies as my heart desires. These reveries have little or no impact on American culture and little or no impact on US politics, either. Things are rather different when discussing Barack Obama, front runner for the Democratic Party nomination for President of the United States.

Not that Obama has ever publicly expressed a favorable opinion on the subject of polygamy. At least none has ever come to my attention. However, a February 26, 2008 article by Nicholas Kristoff calls to everyone's attention some undeniable facts about Obama's family history that merit public discussion that is unlikely in the extreme to be brought up in the Democratic campaign. To do so would be regarded as insensitive, anti--multi-culturalist, and politically incorrect.

The point is not that any man should be held responsible for the "sins of his father," but that the background of any man elected to the highest office to which a US citizen can aspire, the presidency, deserves to be thoroughly
investigated from every relevant perspective.

As someone with Mormon friends, even though I am not Mormon, I can understand the argument that Latter-Day Saints make about "celestial marriage." As long as it is completely voluntary, involving people of legal age, and regarded a lifelong responsibility, then free choice ought to prevail.

And, after all, the Hebrew Bible ( the Old Testament ) is replete with examples of polygyny .Solomon is said to have had scores of wives, other monarchs and respected men of the community had several wives, and the patriarch, Abraham, had two wives himself as well as at least one concubine No less than Martin Luther sanctioned the practice under certain conditions. And, needless to say, Brigham Young, after whom nationally famous BYU is named, had 27 wives and said that plural marriage was divinely sanctioned.

Plus we have de facto polygyny already.

How many women have been more-or-less the wives of Hugh Heffner? How many male Rock stars and celebrity athletes have bedded women by the hundreds?

Or celebrity politicians
like Bill Clinton ? And what is serial monogamy but polygyny on the installment plan ?

What does this have to do with Barrack Obama ?

It turns out that his grandfather, who once was a Christian, became a Muslim who had four wives. It also turns out the Barrack Hussein Obama,Senior, the father of the Senator, had two wives, his mother being # 2. People in
Kenya who knew the father affirm this fact as does the Senator himself.

That is, since the father was also a convert from Christianity to Islam he also was polygynous and did not divorce his first wife when he married the woman who was to become Barack Jr's mother.

There are several serious questions this raises. But before we get to them, it should be made clear that the photograph that first appeared on the Drudge Report showing the Senator wearing Muslim garb that is common
in Somalia and parts of Kenya is also very relevant.

The fact that both Obama's grandfather and father were Christians who converted to Islam has to be regarded as very important. This is NOT something that any rational voter should be expected to ignore.

Quite the contrary.

This suggests a pattern . Yes, Obama makes much of his presumed Christian faith. But just how much confidence can anyone have in his protestations of sincerity when his self-proclaimed spiritual guru, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has made repeated public statements that have praised Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam in uncompromisingly glowing terms?

Consider a speech that Farrakhan delivered one month prior to receiving the highest award that Obama's church, Trinity United Church of Christ , of Chicago, can give. This is its " Lifetime Achievement Trumpeter Award, "bestowed on Farrakhan in December of 2007, somewhat more than 2 months ago as this is being written. And the November / December 2007 issue of the magazine published by the church, The Trumpet, congratulated Farrakhan for his " honesty and integrity," calling him a giant among African-Americans to whom all should turn for inspiration.

That is, before Rev. Wright gave Farrakhan the award, he knew, full well, what the Nation of Islam leader had said only a few weeks previously, This, as reported by NewsMax,com -

“Do you know some of these Satanic Jews have taken over BET [the Black Entertainment
Network]? Everything that we built, they have. The mind of Satan now is running the
record industry, movie industry, and television. And they make us look like we’re the
murderers; we look like we’re the gangsters, but we’re punk stuff.”

These words were spoken on November 11, 2007.

Rev. Wright sees nothing wrong with such sentiments ? And apparently he sees nothing wrong, either, with Farrakhan's standard-fare sermonizing, repeated ad nauseam to all who will listen: White people are "blue eyed devils" and Jews are "bloodsuckers" who control the media and government.

The press has made much of Obama's education at Columbia University and Harvard Law School. Clearly he is a smart man. Are we supposed to believe that he was unaware of the implications of the award bestowed by his church upon Louis Farrakhan ? Are we also supposed to believe that an award with considerable importance that had to have real impact on the presidential aspirations of Barack Obama was not discussed with the Senator?

There is no question that Obama repudiated Farrakhan and his anti-Semitic views on January 15, 2008.. But why then ?

Clearly he had to do so , he had become a serous contender for the nomination of his party. The vital question, therefore, is: Why didn't he do so long before ? Instead, there seems to be no evidence that he had any problems of consequence with the decision by his church and Rev Wright to honor Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.

This is not intended to give credence to rumors and disinformation campaigns to the effect that Obama is a "secret Muslim." But it IS to say that there are justifiable fears about his relationship to Islam. These fears are captured neatly in an edited photograph posted on the Free Republic web site-

Considering the fact that both his grandfather and father were Christians who then converted to Islam , what assurances do we have that Obama won't do likewise and follow the course taken years ago by Cassius Clay aka Muhammad Ali ?

We have no such assurances.

Which is troubling given the pro-Muslim sentiments expressed openly at Trinity United Church, a member congregation of the UCC, the United Church of Christ, which has an outlook about such matters that is indistinguishable from that of the Unitarians.

Then there is this oddity.

Exactly how much credence to place in the document is an open question, but there exists a statement by one Usama K Dakdok, president of The Straight Way of Grace Ministry, recounting a conversation he had in which he telephoned Trinity and made inquiries about joining. Four other people were listening to the conversation at the time, apparently fairly recently.

That is, they presumably can verify Dakdok's report.

The crux of things is that a membership officer at the church told Dakdok that, "yes, Muslims are members of our church." Dadok had asked about this since he made it clear ( by way of a detective's device ) that he himself was a Muslim but liked the church and wanted to join.

To the extent this is true -the document is also available at Free Republic--it means that Barack Obama has been a member of a congregation for 20 years in which he has mingled with Muslims on at least an occasional basis. But even if there are no Muslim members, clearly he has belonged to a "church" that decade after decade has had a positive outlook toward Islam. And, after all, he is well aware that his entire family in Kenya,cousins, aunts and uncles, etc, plus his devout half-brother, are all Muslim believers.

And do not even try to say that this has no influence on Obama. It has to have an influence and the only question that really matters is "how much ? "

The inference to draw is that it is certainly thinkable that in the future Barack Obama might follow in the footsteps of his grandfather and father and become a Muslim himself. He already has a Muslim middle name, Hussein, which he can hardly overlook or forget . If this was to happen it could well be an unmitigated disaster for the United States.

Finally let us deal with the subject of polygamy -more properly "polygyny." I was unable to locate any photographs showing Obama's father and his two wives together, or the two women together. But I did find a picture that simulates what the women might have looked like next to each other. It was chosen with some care to present them in as positive light as possible, simply as two attractive women one of whom was Barack's mother, Ann Dunham.

To say the least, I do not disparage inter-racial families. They are pretty much like other families, some of which are "made in heaven," some of which are fiascos, and everything in between.

After all, my name, "Rojas," comes from my father, a dark-skinned Filipino who legally adopted me while I still was an infant. I am as Caucasian as anyone gets genetically but always knew my Dad as a good and hard working man, a great role model, who cared for me as much as he did any of the other children in the household whom he fathered .

He also was the primary reason for my lifelong scholarly ( and other ) interests in Asia and Asian religions. No way will I say that inter-racial families are "bad."

But Americans have every right to at least consider what they may be getting into.

It is an entirely legitimate question to ask: "What will the fact that his father was a polygamist mean to Obama should he be elected? " How might this effect his judgement? Would he try to legitimate polygamous marriages in the United States?

Which is not--in his case--about Mormons in Utah or northern Arizona, but about Muslims living on Long island or in Dearborn, Michigan or in LA. Such a question has extra meaning since his grandfather had four ( 4 ) wives
and did so as a practicing Muslim.

I was also unable to find a photograph of Obama's grandfather and his four wives but another simulation makes the point well enough. Here is what the women may have looked like in the community where the Obama family lived when Barack's father was still at home in Kenya -

Like it or not, the photograph of Obama wearing traditional Somali clothing, as was the fashion in his father's home village, suggests the appearance of his grandfather's harem. Exactly why shouldn't American voters be concerned?

Exactly why shouldn't Americans freely discuss what is implied in all of this? If this photo showed your grandfather's four wives it would have no relevance to any of your political views?

Don't be absurd, of course it would.

Americans have every right to be concerned and to discuss the implications.

An article by Phyllis Chesler ( posted at Chesler Chronicles ), makes the point that at a minimum we might get our " first Muslim president. " What she had in mind was analogous to the epithet given Bill Clinton, as America's first Black president.

The " best " we could hope for would be pro-Muslim policies that " out-Bush"
George W Bush. and his pro-Muslim policies replete with hand-holding with Saudi royals.

The worst we might end up with? Do we really want to contemplate any such thing? After all, we are at war with Muslim extremism, with Islamic terrorists of various types, and with what has rightly been called "Islamofascism."

All of these issues deserve to be discussed by the American public.

But--surprise, surprise--none of this is being discussed by American citizens except the relative few who understand what is at stake and who participate in Internet forums. The mainstream news media simply will
not deal with such matters--at all.

It de facto censors all such discussion.

This is inexcusable.

It is also understandable, given the almost universal religious illiteracy that prevails at all TV networks and nearly all major metropolitan daily newspapers. And bad as such ignorance is, it is made worse by attitudes of Political Correctness that pervade the news media, to the effect that it is off limits to offer any honest criticisms of Islam whatsoever out of fear of offending Muslims.

It is OK to criticize Evangelicals at will, to criticize the Catholic Church whenever it is convenient to do so, and to criticize still other religions, but Islam is off limits.

After all, what TV network wants a celebrity news anchor assassinated by a Muslim crazy; what newspaper wants a leading editor killed by an Islamic terrorist?

But this is EXACTLY the point.

And now Americans are seriously considering voting for someone with deep Muslim roots as our nations president?

With no debate on the subject?

With no informed discussion in the news media?

What do you call that ? It seems to me that there is only one good answer to the question, call it what it is: Gross irresponsibility, even criminal negligence, it is that unjustifiable.

by Billy Rojas

[Billy Rojas is a former college teacher of the Social Sciences, History, and Comparative Religion , at Phoenix college, Alice Lloyd College, Lower Columbia College, and the City Colleges of Chicago. He was formerly assigned to the US Navy as an instructor with the USS Enterprise.]

images: smoothstone; billy rojas
Source: Obama and Culture by Billy Rojas

Digg! - Bigger, Better!.
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Leave your name/nic.
We've changed the comments section to allow non-registered users to comment.
We'll continue like that until it's being abused.
We reserve the right to delete all abusive or otherwise inappropriate comments.