Like oil and water, politics and religion don't mix very well. As a matter of fact, if you try to beat oil and water together, just let them sit, and they will quickly separate because they are immiscible.
If you listen to politicians and the people who are continuing to rant about the separation of church and state, you would believe religion and politics are likewise immiscible.
However, as we have witnessed from the events of the past month, nothing is further from the truth. Whether we like it or not, religion will always enter the political discourse, and occasionally politicians will become embroiled in religious issues. President Obama certainly has developed the tendency to be a lightning rod for religious issues.
It started out during the campaign when the fire and brimstone of the erudite Rev. Jeremiah Wright (the president's religious mentor) contained a call for God to damn America for its perceived sins. Many of us understand to call for the damnation of an individual, much less an entire nation, is a sacrilegious act of usurping God's judgment. Somehow Sen. Obama managed to distance himself from his mentor, claiming he had never heard him speak words such as this.
Sometime later, after he became president, he made a remark that the United States was not a Christian nation. I think I understand what he was trying to say. I believe he was trying to distinguish the United States from other nations that are tacit theocracies. To say Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran and others are Islamic nations would most certainly be correct.
I believe what the president was really trying to say is the United States is not just a Christian nation, but a nation of many religions - all of which coexist rather amicably most of the time.
However, his remarks drew a firestorm of criticism, mostly from Christians and the political opposition who believe the United States is still a Christian nation, or a predominantly Christian nation for certain.
And recently a Pew Research poll indicates that somewhere close to 20 percent of U.S. citizens believe the president is a Muslim, nearly double from March 2009. The president's sometimes fawning remarks about the contributions of Muslim citizens to our country and the world, and his famous bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia after previously denigrating U.S. citizens who "... cling to their guns and religion," stand in marked contrast to each other and certainly cause one to wonder where his heart truly lies.
And then the president inserted himself - but only halfway - into the controversy surrounding the location of the proposed mosque and Islamic center near ground zero of Sept. 11, 2001. Unfortunately, he chose to make a statement of the obvious - that anyone has the right to build a mosque on a piece of private property - conveniently sidestepping an extremely sensitive and emotional issue.
In trying to stay away from the appearance of offending Islamic people, the president managed to offend the majority of Americans. While being sensitive to Islam, the president has been remarkably insensitive to many U.S. citizens.
Suddenly, freedom of religion is the cause clbre for many people in our country. This is from people who a month ago couldn't care less about any religion, unless there's a nativity scene or cross in the "wrong" location. It's too bad the location of a mosque or a church has little to do with freedom of religion and everything to do with planning and zoning rules of the municipality.
The president's declining popularity is certainly not helped by his sometimes stumbling, ill-timed forays into religious issues. And he is receiving a great deal of help from the loyal opposition who are eager to hand him a larger shovel when he starts digging a hole for himself. It would be nice to think their opposition was fueled by a genuine concern for the sensitivities of the nation's Christian majority instead of purely political leverage.
And while we're on the issue of sensitivity, which I personally believe is the primary and overriding reason the proposed mosque should be relocated farther away from ground zero, we need to respect the feelings of the families and friends of the victims of this attack.
For years now lack of sensitivity to one group or another - blacks, Hispanics, gays and others - has been the mortal sin ascribed to offenders by the liberal progressives. And now, when Islam is involved, we can throw the sensitivity issue under the bus along with the families and friends of the victims ... and the majority of citizens in our country.
We cannot escape the fact that radical Islamic murderers, who were radicalized with the assistance of some of their religious leaders, have carried out numerous attacks against the United States abroad and now here over the last 30 years! Another Pew Research Center poll indicates Americans are conflicted over Islam, with a plurality believing Islam does not encourage violence more than other religions. I'd like to see how they conducted that poll.
John Locke, a British philosopher from the 1600s whose ideas were the foundation for much of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, observed, "The actions of men are the best interpreters of their thoughts."
We would do well to remember this in analyzing and evaluating the actions of others, be they presidents or paupers, instead of relying on their words and rhetoric.
I think the Bible says something like, "By their fruits shall you know them." I once heard someone explain this passage by saying that we aren't permitted to judge people, but we are certainly allowed to be fruit inspectors.
If people's beliefs were truly reflected in their actions, they would never have to tell anyone who or what they are.
Well, that's what's been on my mind.
