Marxists are atheists, and logically, have to be. Most Progressives fall into the same category, although back in the early days of the movement some religionists claimed fealty to the Almighty, until they actually had to choose between their man-made earthly agenda and the heavenly one written by the Author. Considering Man's vanity and arrogance, the choice really wasn't hard. That process has been moving apace for almost a century now, several of our old mainstream churches now within a cat's whisker of dying out altogether, only just now finding out, in Mark Twain's words, they have no excess baggage to throw overboard in order to save their sinking ships. Heeding a lower calling, they signed a Faustian bargain, and dropped God from their Christmas card list.
In the final tally, the Left simply cannot abide a supreme, unbending morality that it cannot control or bend to its purposes. But before they will cast Him off entirely, they will bend His words, and that is where we are today with Obama & Company. The operative law here is, they always cast Him off. They have to, for He was never the reason they set about on their course in the first place.
But in saying this I am not only speaking to Judeo-Christianity, but also Islam. So if you are Muslim, I am saying this cozy relationship with socialism and fascism many Muslims have struck is a contract with Satan. And it is a sucker punch for you, for all who bake such a cake eventually have to strip away the icing to reveal what makes up the cake....God (Allah) or something else.
Actually that opening sentence I left dangling was also a sucker punch, hinting that Obama could still believe in a Supreme Being and be a radical socialist if he also adhered to that body of beliefs today we call islamo-fascism. Ahmadinejad does. Bin Laden does. Jeremiah Wright does. Probably even the diablo del niño pequeño, Chavez, fits in there as well.
But in the end this cannot be so. On analysis, that are only one of two explanations of Obama's inner beliefs; either he's for God or against Him. He could just be one of those ordinary run-of-the-mill Marxists, hiding under the guise of religion. He won't have been the first. (I think the jury's still out on Bill Clinton.) Or he could have deluded himself into believing, as many have, that God wills these things they are doing, making it perfectly permissible in God's eyes to kill innocent people, even children, even the children of Believers, in the marketplace, on airplanes, no matter, if the objective is to establish God's power over all men.
It never seems to work out that way, which is why I opened with a paragraph about atheism, which today can be defined alternately not only as a disbelief in God, but also a hatred for Him, as a jealous Satan felt, hoping to rise up to be His equal. We cannot know Obama's heart (is he a poseur or self-deluded?) but we can judge the paucity, the thinness of the so-called religion(s) he professes and surrounds himself with. For the "religion" itself is a facade. And in judging Obama through his faux-faith, likewise we can judge bin Laden, and many others. Even Lady Nan.
And it really doesn't matter whether Obama's real religion is Christianity and his hidden one Islam, for as fake belief systems they are the same, and they intersect at Jeremiah Wright and Liberation Theology. On real religion's behalf, I will argue that the type of Islam that umbrellas radical-islamic movements from Calypso Louie Farrakkan and Jeremiah's Wright's flock in America (liberation theology), to the worm Ahmadinejad's core group in Iran, to the cowardly Taliban and (probably dead) bin Laden, to Hezbollah, Hamas, has very little top do with God.
If you count them all, even now, and the core beliefs they represent today, at the apogee of their numeric power, they are still so small as to be only a handful of sand in the Sahara that is Islam. They control a lot land, a whole big lot of money, wield power, but religions are all measured by the souls that cling to them, and these souls are very few indeed. Indeed, in the final tally, they are zero, for their religion isn't real. They present themselves as a cake, rich in Allah's flour, covered in a rare and expensive icing, and are willing to kill, and kill and kill to protect it, when in fact, if you remove that icing, you find only hatred or a lust for power in the batter. Allah is nowhere to be found. It is the money and power and fear that disguises this weak, puny pastry.
Either you're one of or you die.
I'm trying to think of all the religious faiths in world history that has had an "either you're one of us or you die" stance on freedom of religion. Notice I didn't say "you are shunned", for many communities are famous for making a non-believer's life miserable if they are not one of the flock. Mormon towns out west frown on beer and other vices, and Gentiles in general, yet Mormons can live among Gentiles easier than the reverse. Baptists in central Kentucky cried in the 50's when the courts ruled they couldn't run a fellow in for drinking beer in his own house with the shades up (after the local snoops had called him in). When I was in college you couldn't buy a cigarette in Wilmore, Kentucky (home of Asbury College, the principal Methodist college in the region), and the golf course didn't allow cussing, including a sign saying "Someone is always listening in." I believed 'em, too. Shot an 89. Dammit. My mother wanted every person in town who didn't come to church on Sunday to be jailed. I'm exaggerating, but she was a hard woman on that subject. But pity the poor woman walking out of the grocery store who was a "don't-give-a-damn-layabout" on Sunday, then found herself walking past my mother. That little 5'2 nose could scratch clouds, she turned it up so high. Like I said, she was a hard women. Ostracism, shunning, is a powerful social tool, and often can be unfair, even mean, but I generally support its use, as an important tool in society. We'll need it again. If we win.
But stringing people up for being of no faith, or the wrong faith? Not many people have done that. Even rock worshippers rarely thought to heave a few of them at the poor schlub who passed by because he didn't want to join their circle. "Live and let be, and maybe shun" has been generally the rule of the world's religions. Just don't try to buy a beer in Joseph City, Arizona. Or monkey meat in Jaipur.
I count two, in fact. But I'm not being scholarly about this, as I don't really know, or care, how many ancient religions or tribes actually required one to join the local faith in order to live in their towns. I simply know that atheists have killed millions in my lifetime, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Biafra (while Nixon snoozed), Rwanda (while Clinton was grabbing Monica by the ears, but apologized later...to Rwanda for not paying closer attention) and right here in America, where don't-give-a-damn's have killed millions of little babies since 1973 with not so much as a "by your please". And the beat goes on in China, Cuba, Venezuela and Iran today. Neither the Catholic Church of the Dark Ages or the rampaging armies of early Islam could shine those atheist-boys' shoes. Indifferent murder is so much in those people's blood, we really do need to strip away the icing from these "killers-for-the-faith" to see if that same putrid cookie dough is underneath their cake as well.
For one, our Church did have a dalliance with that theme, "either you're one of us, or you die" and they even established a special court (of inquisition) to deal with those fallen miscreants. They burned them. After a trial, believe it or not. (And that matters.) They even burned a flat chested little French girl named Joan, who would've been in the history books even if they hadn't. But in the early 16th century a German monk reversed the course of the Church, and Christianity, and they stopped doing that. It still took awhile, though, huge cumbersome machines rarely come to a sudden stop before reversing course. They slow down.
It's not for me to say the Church has or hasn't paid enough penance these past 580 years, but they seem to have acknowledged their error and reformed, in the mystical way they acknowledge such things. I'm not The Judge in these matters anyway, but, still the thousands they did burn over half a millennium does seem kind of paltry compared to what the Sangerites have killed the last 37 years.
And it was all done "mainstream" back in the Middle Ages, too, just like Obama now. It was legal, just like Mao or Dzerzhinsky. Remember that trial they gave Joan of Arc? They had to have a record to show what they had done, and in that record they had to have a justification, and finally, they had to have a penalty, prescribed by God, on religious Authority, not by some secular king. That's easy as we can see even today. Just as we can read the Constitution, the US Code, and the CFR's anyway we want to suit our purposes, the The Church of the Middle Ages read all those mean old Old Testament dicta about cleansing and purification in a way that would justify what they wanted to do. The Old Testament was full of God's retribution, leveling cities, selling women and children into slavery, killing off entire populations, and it was easy to derive from those scriptures a guide book as how to deal with people the devil had claimed, taking the Lord's justice in their own hands to satisfy the crime. I can't find a single New Testament authorization for doing what the old Church did to those early "don't give a damns". Compare the recent federal lawsuit against Arizona (jurisdiction) versus the "justification" for it, stated by Obama (racial profiling) to understand how Middle Age clerics could so easily come up with any result they desired. Then compare with the Qu'ran's invoking war against all non-Believers, and its exemptions of People of the Book, to see how many loopholes a faux-Muslim could find to justify killing innocents buying vegetables in a market.
Then compare, side by side, Mao, Stalin, the Sangerites, none of whom misread any of their enabling texts. They read their texts perfectly well. Their justification is perfectly sound under their sacred texts, and only "illegal" to the cosmic extent we allow the foundational laws of that corrupt and flawed old Church to remain as a fixed star in our moral firmament. It is God's law, not theirs, that makes human life sacred. Like Christianity, Islam withholds certain law-making power exclusively for Allah, and certain judgments as well. Without those beliefs, murder, genocide, etc while maybe "wrong", or "Immoral" under Haditha or Christianity, can still be "legal". Just ask the Falun Gong in China, today. Just ask the Iranian people.
Well, in a similar way, the early "church" of Islam was founded on the notion of "you are either one of us or you die." There was a difference with them and the Christians, though, in that the ambassadors of their faith actually rode the horses and swung the blade, while Christian ambassadors simply walked alongside the horsemen, intending to claim whatever souls they could find who hadn't had their heads lopped off. And while people today ask the question as to why Muslims have not had their own Martin Luther hang another 95 theses on some mosque in Damascus, in fact, that more or less occurred in the 10th-12th centuries, when Christianity and Western Europe were still locked in the Dark Ages. Most of their lands conquered, and converted to the Faith, the Moslem world began settling down to commerce and administration and all the things that cause one to rub up against other cultures and religions. While, just like in Joseph City, Arizona, a Christian would not do all that well in a waddy on the Alexandria-Tripoli road in North Africa, he could prosper and practice his faith in most of the cities of Islam with protection. Jews "escaped" from Europe in this period, to several Muslim capitals, and rose to high ranks in government under the protection of the caliphs. Foreigners were good for business, you see. The Silk Road saw every conceivable culture and religion, and for the most part of was under the protection of some Muslim lord.
This "convert or die" stuff ended for the most part early in the Middle Ages, and remained so until fairly recent times. Sure, there was the occasional Mahdi storming out of the desert. Sure, a Christian in 1870 on the road to Damascus would keep one eye out for bandits, and a hand on his revolver, but being a trail of pilgrimage, that's where bandits always lay in wait. The same was true of certain sections of the pilgrimage to San Sebastian in Spain...for nearly a thousand years.
Even into our times, in the United States, Muslims have been immigrating here for over a century. After WWII there was mass migrations of Muslims into Western Europe, beginning with Turkey, then from French Africa and Algeria, seeking work and stability away from the destabilizing process of de-colonization. While apart, as most ethnic communities are when in diaspora, in America at least, the process of assimilation proceeded as it had with other immigrant populations. Muslim-Christian marriages, while rare, did occur, especially in the second and third generations, and Sharia law did not take precedence. Even in Europe, where "guest workers" did not carry the same legal status as legal immigrants in the US, i.e., they couldn't become citizens, still there were mixed marriages and many cross-cultural exchanges. The whole issue of sharia law is very modern. And it is political, not religious, mostly by cynical Eurocrats who want to be the last ones eaten.
I can't say when it began, this Muslim religious militancy. Some say 1948, when Israel was created, but the Mufti of Jerusalem had legions with Hitler years earlier. So islamo-fascism predates Israel. Others say 1958, with the Algerian uprising against the French, where modern terror tactics (and organization) first showed its ugly hand. Still others point to Munich '72, as the point when that militancy became political, all about Israel, of course. But none of these were particularly religious in nature.
But we can go back another century and consider the rise of Wahhabism (This is a name they don't like or use by the way.) in the Arabian peninsula, and perhaps find the religious connection answer there, for more than the religion, they provided the money, including bin Laden and the Taliban. It's hard for Americans or Europeans to find an easy metaphor for the rise of Wahhabbi power, for it was always been attached to a throne, and the richest throne in the world, the royal family of Saudi Arabia. Wahhabbis have never been in a subordinate or colonial position as the Algerians or Palestinians had been. They were never a subjugated sect. While their brand of Islam is akin to a small rural church in the Appalachians, where they handle rattleheads and coppersnakes, and their understandings of the Qu'ran and Hadith, and the civilized, ecumenical "live and let live" trends of Islam I just discussed, were about as widely received in the Islamic world as a fellow stepping our of Possum Hollow and telling folks he'd had a vision.
But then God steps in with a sense a humor, for it seems one of the tribal chieftains who did listen to Wahhab in the wilderness was a fellow named Saud, who then stormed out of the wilderness to rescue all the holy places (Mecca and Medina) from other Muslims, then trampled on and burned all kinds of Qu'rans that were too fancy for Wahhab's taste (which our soldiers are accused of doing in GITMO), then settled down to his new digs in a more upscale part of the desert, close to year-round water, when lo and behold, someone found oil, and the world suddenly beat a path to ol' Jed Clampett's, er, King Saud's tent. All of a sudden a British ambassador with "Lord" in front of his name was being ushered onto his rug, to bow and scrape and tell him how wise and magnificent he was, and what a great burnoose he was wearing.
If you believe, as I do, that America and American exceptionalism is Providential, on the same sheer audacity of the odds, so was this creation of this immeasurable wealth placed in the hands of some snake handling religonists from the backsands of the driest, most unforgiving terra incognita imaginable. Like Gollum, they too have their role. They too are part of His plan.
For with all this adulation for the royal family, for two generations what slipped most people's attention was that King Saud and his family were faithful tithers, so that the second most wealthy entity on earth were the trustees of that tithe, the Wahhabbis. What also slipped our notice is that they are still strict adherents of that vision first formed down in Terra Arabia, that basically " you're either one of us, or you die."...a Possum Hollow preachment if ever there was one.
Since the 1960s, at least, they started building mosques and schools (madrassas) all over the world and basically buying votes and power with their immense wealth. Obama likely attended one in Indonesia. Money, not God (Allah) was what sold their ideas for mothers who lined up to get their children an education...and a possible job slot later on.
With money alone Wahhabism, a rigidly ultra-conservative vision of Islam, grew around the Islamic world, first among the poor and disenfranchised of the world, then, in the West. With that kind of money they could have turned Count Chocula into a religious sacrament.
But strip money away from Wahhabbism and let it proselytize its ideas among the community of men and it will wither and die in a generation, or, return to Possum Hollow, for it is selling a cake that is bitter to the taste for all men who wish to come before Allah as men rather than cattle. All the Islamo-fascist pretenders have attached themselves to it because of its expression of violent power as a means to to an end.
So, the title stands. There is no "unless". Obama simply cannot both Believe in a Supreme Being for what he is doing is in the name of a man-made god. And we know those false gods very well.