Smearing Obama

by Richard on February 5, 2011

Attention Fox Nation: There Is More Than One Version Of The Bible

Conservatives have spent the last several years trying to cast doubt on President Obama’s Christianity, often by suggesting he is a secret Muslim or claiming that he is a non-believer pretending to be Christian for political benefit. Sadly, their smear campaign has been effective - Pew reported last year that only 34 percent of Americans believe Obama is Christian (compared to nearly 18 percent who think he is Muslim.)

So did Obama botch the Bible verse?

No. He used the NIV.

But as the article says “Most likely, they won’t bother to correct their story, and their goal will be accomplished: the readers that trust them will remember the time Obama “misquoted” the Bible, some more people will question the authenticity of Obama’s faith, and the smear machine will move on.”


{ 1 trackback }

Obama on Eagle’s Wings (Misquoting the Bible) « Ramblings from Red Rose
02.05.11 at 12:02 pm

{ 20 comments… read them below or add one }


Earl 02.05.11 at 4:27 pm

Actions speak. In the absence of action, silence answers no questions. When it comes to the current administration, there has not been much to hear. People have formed their own conclusions.


Paul F. 02.05.11 at 10:26 pm

Perhaps his refusal to use his religion to score political points is a sign of integrity, unlike some politicians we know.

He has spoken about his faith before. Those who want to smear him or cast doubt simply ignore it.


Earl 02.05.11 at 11:32 pm

Words. Spoken off-hand or read off a teleprompter, are contradicted by actions. Actions speak… loud. People have observed his actions and formed their own conclusions.


Richard 02.05.11 at 11:53 pm

Earl, please. What makes you think that saying the same thing over and over strengthens your case?


Earl 02.06.11 at 1:14 am

My Spanish teacher well understood the value of repetition in learning. This is one of those instances. So, as she used to say, “Otra vez! Otra vez!”


Richard 02.06.11 at 7:23 am

But this is not a classroom. And you’re not our teacher.


Earl 02.07.11 at 3:14 am

Your house. Your rules.


Richard 02.07.11 at 7:01 am

That’s the right spirit, Earl. :)


Paul F. 02.08.11 at 1:01 am

“Earl, please. What makes you think that saying the same thing over and over strengthens your case?”

The propaganda technique of “The Big Lie”, most likely.

Earl, what “actions” does Obama have to perform to confirm that he is Christian to you? Bomb some more Arabs? Gut every last penny of social safety net spending?


Earl 02.09.11 at 2:53 am

“What ‘actions.’” He could start by telling the truth. But that would require him to, well, tell the truth. And that would be inconvenient for him… and his supporters. The truth is a bit to much. He’ll just stick with reading his script off the teleprompter.


Kim 02.09.11 at 7:44 am

The truth is a bit to [sic] much. He’ll just stick with reading his script off the teleprompter.

At least he can read - and spell.


Earl 02.09.11 at 10:47 pm

Spell? That would depend on who wrote the script.


Paul F. 02.10.11 at 12:07 am

Since you find it appropriate for everyone to draw one’s own conclusions in the absence of action, I conclude that members of the tea party are either racist and/or full of shit, as there was no wave of populist anger during all those years of wasteful spending under Bush, or when he passed his own bailout bill just before he left office.


Earl 02.10.11 at 12:59 am

“I conclude… ” etc. You may be right! After all, even the hands of a broken clock point to the right time… twice ever day!


Mendip Nomad 02.10.11 at 12:30 pm

When it comes to requiring a political leader, any leader but in particular a President, to demonstrate their faith I refer all-comers to Sen. Arnold Vinick (Alan Alda) and his speech to the media at the end of The West Wing, Series 6, Episode 20 “In God We Trust”. See:


Kim 02.10.11 at 3:05 pm

Bravo, Mendip! What a timely intervention. Senator Vinick anticipates an observation with which Jonathan Malesic begins a (September 2010) article for “ABC Religion and Ethics” entitled “Why politicians should keep their faith hidden”: “American Christianity is being poisoned by the transformation of Christian identity to a market-tested brand identity.” Absolutely: unscrupulous point-scoring, populist pandering, sanctimonious hypocrisy - it’s all there on all sides (it’s just that politicians on the Religious Right are more theologically vacuous - and dangerous). Should faith inform the politics of a President who is a Christian? Woe unto him if it doesn’t! Should this President use his faith as a rhetorical contrivance with which to attract or attack? Woe unto him if he does! Thus does the cross become a pole on which to climb to be admired or feared - and thus does the cross cease to be the cross.


Mendip Nomad 02.10.11 at 3:30 pm

Kim, your sentences starting “Should faith inform the politics…” sum up, quite neatly, what I think was in the minds of the Founding Fathers when they developed the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. To be very clear, the Consitution, in supporting the right of all to exercise their right to religion, allows for the fact that religious life goes beyond simply attending church and may, indeed should, involve being active in the workings of the government (at municipal, state or federal level). Yet, at the same time, their determination to ensure, within the very same amendment (and the First Amendment at that), that no religion shall become established makes it clear that while political involvement by those of faith is to be allowed, the involvement in religion by the politically active must not be allowed to become a requirement. While, in law, this remains the case, it is the reality that more and more it seems that for some Americans an established church is becoming a de facto expectation.

And, while I prefer not to defend myself against arguments that may never arise in this case I think it may be necessary in order to save people’s time and effort, those who are concerned that a Brit is commenting on, and assuming knowledge of, the US Consitution should be aware that I studied US Constitutional Law at Ole Miss (the University of Mississippi), a university in one of the US’s most conservative states, in the heart of the Bible Belt and the Deep South, under two Law/Political Science professors, one of whom was a local Judge and member of the Republican Party, as well as a former FBI agent, and the other of whom had just returned from being a visiting professor of Law at West Point, a place recognised as one of the foremost military academies in the world.


Kim 02.10.11 at 4:07 pm

Jeez - and you lived to tell the tale! ;)


Richard 02.10.11 at 4:55 pm

It sounds like you have a story to tell Mr Nomad!


Earl 02.11.11 at 8:38 pm

Kennedy, Carter, Reagan and Bush were suspected, mocked, ridiculed and criticized, sometimes severely, by those who took issue with or were suspicious of their expressions of personal religious faith and how it did or did not impact upon their executive office. Recently the political, social and religious left offered no velvet glove treatment of President Bush, his family or anyone in his administration. Throughout the election, his two terms in office and even in the period since leaving office, criticism by the left has been consistent, uniform, unrelenting. Similar skepticism of the current executive is fully warranted by his own record, or rather his lack of one. The same is true of his administration and those associated with it.

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>