O good, here’s a perfect example of the silliness that adherence to religious labels promotes. A recent article titled Not quite Muslim, not quite Christian by author Ilana Mercer asserts that Obama is a Muslim whether he wants to be or not. She states:
Obama’s patrilineal ties to Islam – Muslim father and grandfather – make him a Muslim by birth.
She says that he may be an Apostate of Islam, but in any case,
If elected, Obama will also be the first post-Christian president.
Her religious mind is so caught up in its other-wordly mumbo-jumbo that she believes one cannot be the arbiter of one’s own belief system. This reminds me of something I saw on Ray Comfort’s exceedingly condescending blog the other day:
There is a difference between being a “believer” and being a Christian. Every sane human being is a “believer” in God’s existence. Some people pretend He doesn’t exist (atheists) but they know He does.
Yup, according to Mr. Comfort, the only way to be a real atheist is to be insane. Otherwise you ARE a believer, and he knows it.
Likewise, Ms. Mercer has some very firm opinions on what a “real” Christian is…
Christian doctrine decrees that embracing Jesus Christ as personal savior is the only road to redemption. Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Obama disagrees. He, the Holy Son, says: “There are many paths to the same place.” Is that Christianity? Apparently so in post-Christian America.
Does such an inclusive view really make hard-line Christians wince? Does the thought that non-Christians may (think they can) backdoor their way into heaven without bowing down in worship to Jesus really get under their skin. Furthermore, does it really make them want to vote Republican?