God Bless

The United States, to remain the United States, will always be to have the teachings of Christ as foundational values. The United States has become as Jewish nation, and a Buddhist nation and an Hindu nation because of the tolerance spawned by Jesus teaching that we should “love our enemies.” While people of other belief are not necessarily the enemies of Christians or Christ, their beliefs are at variance. Nevertheless, the Christian exercises tolerance because of his/her love for others. That is why now, The United States is still a Christian nation, and a Jewish nation, a Buddhist nation, Hindu nation and yes, even a Muslim nation.

But I do want to share that the I have witnessed Gospel shared in love and through long suffering, self-control, kindness and other fruits of the spirit; through a life shared in compassion and in joys and sorrows of other beautiful people who do not agree with me on faith (Hindus, Muslims and others). I have seen my family come to accept Christ over a period of 4-5 years.

I also do agree that many who call us Christians as hypocrites have a good reason to do so. Somewhere down the line, we do tend to follow “Christianity rather than Christ” and are judgmental on those who disagree, and often condescending & ridiculing.

As for Obama and the debate about America being Christian nation or not – well, does that even matter? If our faith in Christ can move mountains, it can certainly bring about miracles and change hearts. So, what do we as Christians have to worry about? Why this insecurity?

Personally, I see more Christlike character in Obama in what he does and how he relates to people than some other so called Christian presidents in the U.S. who have appeared more stiff necked and terrible witnesses of our Lord in the world outside.

1.The whole Obama “Slavery in the Bible” issue.
I come from a country which was colonized by Europeans. Though it is not the same as having ancestors who were slaves, I can relate how that can make someone question slavery in the bible. I was 15 when I first questioned this. I could not believe how a benevolent God, the very God that brought out Israelites from slavery in Egypt could give instructions on how to treat slaves. I would have thought He forbade slavery. I must add I never questioned things like the sacrifice of Isaac, the story of Job etc which other people normally question. These made perfect sense to me. My pastor in my native country who was very wise gave me this answer. He said that these rules were given by God to govern the Israelites in their day to day life. He said some rules are relevant today and some are not and some are cultural. Like the rule about pork being unclean in Deuteronomy. It is universal among the people of Israel, Muslims and some countries in Asia while pork as a food is popular in Europe which has been Christian for centuries and consequently countries like Australia and America with a European ancestry. Also the issue of sacrifices in the Old Testament and how Jesus made it unnecessary because of His personal sacrifice for us on the cross. He told me that we needed to look at slavery in the Bible from that context and not relate to what we know today. That does not make parts of the Bible irrelevant, but it also means that parts of the Bible were applicable to different times. He told me to remember that the Bible was not written continuously by one person and is comprised of books and letters. He also told me a little of how the Bible came to be adopted as a Holy Book and the History behind it. He also said what makes things like the ‘Ten Commandments’ timeless is that they are just that. Timeless. He also said sometimes many meanings are lost while translating the bible from Greek to a native tongue which may not have the adequate vocabulary to express what the original author intended. He gave me the often used example of the three forms of love in Ancient Greek. I must mention that this pastor speaks English well, but opts to preach and speak in his native tongue. He also learnt Greek and read the Bible in Greek. I hope I was able to communicate what he said in my native tongue properly while translating it into English without losing the essence of it and I hope I remembered it right. I do not expect anyone to agree with me, but I wanted to give a different point of view.

2.“Is America a Christian Country? ” –
For me America is a secular country and I say so because it has no official state religion. All Islamic countries to my knowledge are so called because their official religion is Islam. There is no official Hindu country, not even India where 80% of the population is Hindu because there is no official religion. Nepal was the only official Hindu country before they adopted democracy. I grew up among Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists as well as Christians. We went to school together, in my case a private Christian school, celebrated each other’s festivals though not worshipping each others Gods, went to each other’s weddings even though we were not of the same religion and some of us are even friends up to this day. All this has taught me that decent and devout people exist in all religions. Hinduism and Islam are some of the hardest religions to follow in that they are very ritualistic. I have seen devout Muslims pray 5 times a day and do not ever drink. I have also seen Hindus prostrate on the ground before the deity, the more extreme versions include fire walking, pulling little chariots tied to hooks attached to their bodies, handling fire with their bare hands etc. Both religions practice corporal mortification among some sects and all three religions fast and pray a lot. A lot more than many Christians do certainly. Growing up, I used to feel guilty if I skipped daily prayers because my mother constantly reminded me of how easy I had it because I was a Christian when it came to prayer. Most Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists I know are decent, certainly more devout when it comes to strict observance of their respective religions than me and many Christians I know. I am always thus grateful and cognizant of the fact that I am saved and privileged to be a Christian only because of God’s grace. Pres.Elect.Obama grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia and has family who are Buddhist like his half-sister and a step father, father and siblings who are Muslims and friends of other religions, if not now, certainly growing up. Thus he has learnt like I have that one can be a devout Christian and yet have family, immediate family and friends who are decent belonging to other religions. So his view of America as a secular country which is a collection of people of all religions even though it was founded by Christian men could be based on this as is mine.

3.Finally, I want to address why Barack Obama the person is so attractive to so many people. My first introduction to him was in 2004 in the DNC. He was smart, articulate and seemed well read. But more than that I felt a personal connection with him though I have never met him. It is simple. It is because of his story. It is not just an African –American story. Just look at his immediate and extended family. His mother is white and his father is a Muslim immigrant from Africa. He was brought up by a single mother and then his white grand-parents. His step father is a Muslim from Indonesia. His sister Maya on his mother’s side is Buddhist and she is married to a Chinese-Canadian, his sister on his father’s side, a Kenyan was married to a white English man and lives in England. He has other siblings who are Kenyans are Muslims. His wife and her family are African-American Christians with roots in the mid west. He himself is Christian. He was brought up in places with diverse ethnic populations. It does not get more global than this. Now depending on your point of view, this story can either send a shudder through you or make you feel very global. The main story of his election is the first African-American man into the Presidency of America. But the sub-story here is that many other people who are non-African-Americans also owned his story and saw themselves in him. People like immigrants in America and internationally who like to see their children born in their adopted homelands succeed like him, non-Christians and people in other parts of the world. Politics at its simplest is after all a personal connection to another person. Issues matter, but if there is no connection with some element of the candidate’s or the party’s history, there would be no vote. I have been told historically more African Americans voted democratic even though no African American politician headed the party because of civil rights. That is why even conservative columnists could not figure out why Gov. Palin was a super star to working class people even though they considered her an intellectual light weight and made fun of her accent and mannerisms. Older Vietnamese Americans voted en masse for Sen. McCain. I hate to simplify this too much, but I believe more Hispanics voted twice for Pres. Bush personally and not for the Republican Party because of a personal connection. He could speak Spanish and his extended family included people of Hispanic origin like his sister-in-law, Gov. Jeb Bush’s wife. Pres.Bush was also a successful Gov.Bush of a state with a large Hispanic population. And that is why they did not vote for the Republican Party this time en masse. Because there was a more personal connection with Pres.Elect.Obama than Sen. McCain/Gov.Palin and because in electing him, all people of color break that barrier with him and not just African Americans. Europe I believe loves him so much because they saw something they aspire to in his election. That maybe in their countries someday, electing a person of color would become just as routine as the women they elect in highest office right now.

Obviously, I do not presume to speak for immigrants, Asians or Hispanics and certainly not for Pres.Elect.Obama. But I thought I could give a different perspective here. I was brought up to believe that Jesus taught us to include all types of people among friends and family as he did. Jesus included marginalized people like lepers, prostitutes, fishermen, Samarians who could be considered at the “lower caste” people of their time, women like Mary and Martha who were second class citizens in a patriarchal society etc. I was taught that we must pray for their salvation and preach the Gospel to them, but ultimately it is their choice. And the only difference between the saved and unsaved is not anything we did, but pure Grace given by God.

Now it’s difficult for me to believe that Christian men would so fear their own religion that they would create some kind of hyper-secular state as claimed by militant atheists and secular who have long ground axes against the founding religion of this country. As it was, the American founders did a pretty good job of keeping Congress (or any other quasi-legislative branch of government like our present activist Supreme Court which all too often legislates from the bench) from having the means to establish an official national church while at the same time guaranteeing that free religious expression throughout the breadth of our nation, including its public institutions, would not be infringed.

A literal reading of the First Amendment creates an understanding that Thomas Jeffersons singular missive about “a strict wall of separation of church and state” in his 1802 Danbury Baptist letter (yes, he was the ONLY American founder he made any such statement or variation of that statement) was itself a bad rendering of the First Amendment. The First Amendment only creates a separation between Congress and religion in that Congress cannot pass any law respecting an establishment of religion. That is, Congress can’t pass a law creating an official national religion neither can it pass a law providing a means to pay the clergy of a particular denomination/religion in preference to any others. All faiths would have equal standing before government. But also bear in mind Congress, hence the federal government, could neither hinder nor help any church, mosque or synagogue by paying their clergy out of the government’s largesse.

During the founding period, an “establishment of religion” was understood in a very narrow sense. “Establishment of religion” or “religious establishment” was simply a church, as in a “drinking establishment” was a pub. Second, in a more technical and legal view, the Christian founders believed government was not supposed to be involved in an “establishment of religion” by supporting its clergy with public tax dollars as was happening in England with the Church of England. This would indeed create an egregious entanglement between church and state.

But hyper-seculars today have gone way beyond the original intent of the American founders and are using Jefferson’s personal opinion as a club to beat Christianity over the head and supplanting it with their own irreligious religion of liberal secularism, the latest version of secular humanism. Hyper-seculars merely supplant one religious philosophy with another, theirs, thus running afoul of their own overly broad interpretation of separation of state and religion. A certain irony there, of course.

BTW, I am getting really tired of hearing pro-abortion advocates obfuscating by using the fig leaf of them being “pro-choice”. Euphemisms aside, I rarely find a pro-choice/pro-abortion advocate who is pro-school choice, or pro-social security choice, pro-gun choice, etc. About the only thing they are pro-choice about is being pro-abortion … hence, in my view, they are simply pro-abortion. I think a little intellectual honesty is due from the pro-abortion ranks.