Obama, Christ and Muhammad

Spiritual leaders live in caves, lead non-violent protests and/or are crucified. Politicians are leaders of states that have to compromise on moral and spiritual values for their nations to survive. It is all in scripture. The Old Testament is replete with stories about prophets of God coming in from their wilderness retreats to chastise kings and peoples from straying from the word of God. Quite a few of these wild haired men touched by God were snuffed out for their trouble. A man cannot serve both Mammon and God. No one wearing silk suits and traveling in expensive planes to meetings of world leaders preceded by Champaign luncheons should be looked to for spiritual leadership.

Leaders almost never are given the luxury of doing a total "reboot". Those who force one (Hitler, Lenin, Pol Pot) generally end up on the wrong side of history. Leaders must perforce play the hands they're dealt.

Obama has been given a tough one. To reverse our situation in a mere year (or one term, or two) would, indeed, require a Messiah. Is this what we really demand, or expect?

If we are to use any Biblical analogy, perhaps Moses is a better choice. The waters have not overwhelmed us, yet we are still in the wilderness and the promised land is over the horizon. Our food is scanty and we must depend on providence. We are called to a new future, a new vision of nationhood, but cannot as yet frame the details of what that should be. We grumble and rebel as we wander, seemingly making no real progress.

This is a profoundly human reaction -- even 4000 years ago, we expected instant results and an easy salvation, and still today in the political realm human nature remains unchanged. But can we put the blame on Moses for our own impatience and lack of vision? For we are "a stiff-necked people" (Exodus 32).

The notion of a political leader as a magic "Messiah" is absurd in our present day. Nobody believes that; nobody should. We must accept the far more difficult challenge of learning to work together; the question is, are we up to the task?

Kennedy was inexperienced as well, and was effective and pivotal-

Not in office long enough, and his record was mixed. Vietnam is on his resume to some degree also.

Democrats are hypocrites too. Obama's claim to transparency and his chief of staff are evidence enough. Change? Give me a break.

Someone pontificates thus:
“Rich caravans, Prophet Muhammad's followers, they halted rich caravans in the desert, they relieved the rich caravans of their cargo, they financed the poor of the Umma, the widows, the orphans.”
Moi:
Those caravans were looted to enrich your prophet (SAW) and to further arm him and his henchmen so they can pillage bigger and bigger caravans and tribes and cities such as al Quds. Widows and orphans had nothing to do with the plans of the desert warlord.
“Al Quds, holy city, Prophet Muhammad's followers, they conquered Al Quds in Year 16. They conquered it for Arabs, they conquered it for Muslims.’
Moi:
Moshe Dayan and his comrades reconquered it back. What is won by the sword will be lost by the sword. Case closed!

Thank you, Pamela, for the one honest essay on this topic. Had I world enough and time, I would start posting from the hagiagraphy that characterized many panelists' blogging during both the primaries and the campaigns.

Having any sort of objective discussion, especially during the primaries was impossible. I know. I tried. It was good guys vs. bad guys throughout. The "hope and change, change and hope" mantra accompanied by the "feely" populist ads no matter how obviously false sold the people.

Americans read in the New York Times that Obama's staff PAID people to show up for his appearances and cheer, but all people chose to see and hear were the crowds yelling and cheering.

It is completely understandable that Americans would want to elect an African American to the presidency. I confess I hoped to God to see that in my lifetime. It was evident to me, however, that he was not the right man for the job.

In lieu of concrete plans, I kept hearing hope and change, change I could believe in, blah, blah, and, of course, blah. I heard Obama say he would pull our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan within a week.
Either he was hopelessly uninformed, less informed than I, by far, or he was lying.

I saw Obama in an ad, elevated above the cheering masses, bathed in light, the skies in the background, proclaiming that he would force manufacturers to bring jobs back to America and fine those who outsourced overseas. Bloggers at OnFaith, among other folks, actually believed this, and remarked that they had gone ahead an campaigned for him on the basis of this nonsensical promise.

Continued

In fairness to the heavily biased pro-Obama media, reporters did ask him about this promise after the election, receiving in reply his "explanation" that as president, the matter was outside of his purview.

OnFaith's own Susan Jacoby, whom I generally respect and admire espoused that there was no reason to vote for Clinton in the primaries unless one was a "fanatic about health care." Well, now, as we see the risk of losing health care for millions of Americans, we're all a bit fanatic, are we not.

About this, too, I blogged. Although my family and I have excellent health care I was and am aware that many, many do not. I urged OnFatih readers to access Paul Krugman, who again and again, warned that Obama's statements on health care during the primaries would make it nearly impossible for him to be effective in that domain once he was elected.

Unlike Obama, Clinton never made false promises about Iraq and Afghanistan, about health care, about Guantanamo. She'd worked on health care for twenty years. She knows more about it than Obama ever will. She is a two-fisted politician, well known in the senate, and she is not a "delegater." If Sen. Nelson, and his ilk, had tried the same shenanigans under Clinton as they did under the president, they would have heard from her. In fact, they would have heard from her before pen was put to paper.

The simple fact is that a majority of American voters fell victim to a carefully plotted populist campaign. In fact, the Obama campaign for both the primary and the presidency is now part of mass media and communications courses throughout the country.

Americans voted for a moderate, a neo-liberal like Bill Clinton, not a Liberal like Hillary Clinton.

In fairness, they got what they voted for.
As for me, with the choice between McCain and Obama, I voted for Obama. I got what I voted for. If I'd had the choice, I would have voted for a Liberal.

«Further, his first act was to give Wall Street a massive handout, while ignoring the fact that the crises was created by the middle class being squeezed so hard that thousands upon thousands of us couldn't afford to pay our mortgages.»

Posted by Pamela K. Taylor | January 27, 2010; 6:07 AM ET

O Pamela, how can you even mention a modern politician in the same breath as Prophet Muhammad, SAWS?

Rich caravans, Prophet Muhammad's followers, they halted rich caravans in the desert, they relieved the rich caravans of their cargo, they financed the poor of the Umma, the widows, the orphans.

Rich bankers, President Obama's followers, they printed tens of billions of US Dollars, they financed AIG, AIG paid gamblers at Deutsche Bank, Barclay's, etc., etc., and the poor of the American Umma, the widows, the orphans, President Obama's followers will squeeze them, squeeze their children, to pay back the money they printed, they printed it to give to the rich gamblers.

Al Quds, holy city, Prophet Muhammad's followers, they conquered Al Quds in Year 16 A.H., they conquered it for Arabs, they conquered it for Muslims.

Al Quds, holy city, President Obama's followers, Rahm Emanuel, his father conquered Al Quds in 1948 for non-Arabs, for non-Muslims. President Obama supports non-Arabs, non-Muslims, they rule over Al Quds.

Opposites, President Obama is the opposite of Prophet Muhammad, SAWS.

The Mahdi, were you expecting an American politician to be the Mahdi, to bring peace, prosperity and progress forever?
No wonder you are disappointed, O Pamela.

«Naturally, Christ and Muhammad also asserted the primacy of the Divine over the mundane,»

Yes, the Divine, the Friday Muslim holy day, then the Saturday Old Testament holy day, then the Sunday New Testament holy day, then the holy days end, and the Mundane begins.

President Obama, other American politicians, they are elected on Tuesday, their primacy is the tuesdane, even lower than the mundane. The tuesdane, filled with conflict and strife.

The Mahdi, he will replace the Tuesdane, and infuse the Mundane with the spiritual holiness of Friday, Saturday and Sunday.
The day after Monday, it will no longer be named "Tuesday" after Anglo-Saxon war «god» Tiw, name will be changed to "Kingday" after USA man of peace, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I am surprised Americans have not made this change already, even President Obama, he has not yet suggested getting the war «god» out of our week.

Here here for rtreff,

"Under Bush, we saw what a religious leader could do.

Bush had 8 years to destroy the country and now ye of short attention span want Obama to fix it in 1 year.

Grow up!"

Mr. Obama was simply confronted by reality when he took office. Perhaps he did believe in the "let's be nice and talk it over, and these problems will be solved" fantasy that he and the rest of the Dems and liberals preached during the campaign. Once he got to the White House, however, I'm sure that the Joint Chiefs and other key leaders showed him things that the rest of us are not privy to. Things that showed him how much worse than we imagined these animals that oppose us really are. Thank goodness he is intelligent enough to get a reality check and deal with the situation realistically. Those who do not understand can go singing Kum Ba Ya and criticising him. Hang tough, Mr. President.

"in part, because Obama has been cast as a secular savior by people who are trying to "replace God with the Religion of Humanity." "

You know I would love to see the people that assert these things actually show where Obama supporters actually made these claims. The only people I've ever heard use the words "Messiah" and "Savior" and "The One" are right wingers who use these as a term of derision. It's called "spin" and "framing the issue". If you put Obama and the support for Obama in these terms, a) you do a nice job of deflecting the conversation about what a miserable failure Bush and almost a decade of Republican rule was and how truly unpopular they are among the Ameican people and b) you set up unrealistic expectations that can only be disappointed - again it manages to deflect attention from the Republicans. The conservation doesn't have to be about how the Republicans are being completely irresponsible by refusing to work with this President or for the good of the country (after all, aren't elections supposed to matter?) - instead they can spend all the time talking about how Obama isn't the "Savior" after all - as if everything else exists in a vacuum.

Nice job, Washington Post - you always do so well carrying water for the GOP.

Under Bush, we saw what a religious leader could do.

Bush had 8 years to destroy the country and now ye of short attention span want Obama to fix it in 1 year.

Grow up!

Why are the spokespersons for Islam almost always women?

Of Course, Barak Obama is not THE Anointed (aka the Christ/Messiah). Why do idiots try to claim that Democrats believe he is?

One thing you won't find in the Gospels when JESUS speaks is the advocation of violence by his followers.

Unlike Muhammad, Jesus was NOT a prophet come-lately.

Why does WAPO give a forum to these religious zealots to spout whatever drivel that runs through their minds. There is not other there, except for whatever is here. I like Dawkins polemic earlier this week. He, at least for me, laid out a cogent case against the so called religious moderation's claim to rationality. While I am glad it exists, the slide into lunacy of Robertson is easy not that difficult. Only thing that keeps west from sliding in is the secular has made deep inroads into the cultural mores of the society.

Ms Taylor said:
“Muhammad too offered his followers radical change... he championed the poor and the marginalized, especially women and children, breaking tribal and clan affiliations and forging bonds of brotherhood that united all strata of society.”

Pamela Taylor has a talent for wasting any shred of credibility she might have by uttering macabre and false claims as the above.
How did her prophet champion women and children? Was that by allowing men to marry four wives and unlimited number of slaves? Or maybe by divorcing them simply by uttering a passive phrase “You are divorced.” How did he champion children? Is it by making it so easy for their fathers to throw them along with their mothers on the street, and further prohibiting them from being adopted? There are over two million homeless children in Egypt and none can be adopted because her prophet abolished it for a selfish reason, but that is another sad story. As for the above claim that Muhammad broke tribal affiliation; he simply replaced it by cult membership.

Nice frontal attack on the failings of the Obama Administration, to this point, in coming through with campaign promises and actually doing what he said he would do. And I am a supporter of Obama and voted for him, and am still happy I did not vote for the Republican candidate.

But this is clearly an issue of leadership of a people through government not religion, and Obama has proven that he is just another man, and perhaps an overly inexperienced one.

Kennedy was inexperienced as well, and was effective and pivotal. Lincoln likewise. But neither had the confluence of dramatic forces that Obama is attempting to steer through. It may be easy to be harsh on the man, but the jury will be out on this for awhile. Unless, perhaps, these forces that are unfriendly to him are joined by those that are friendly to him to hobble further advances that he may be able to do with a cooperative effort.

I do not think that cooperation is in the viewfinder of Republican hypocrites and their hate filled PR wizards. Destruction of the Obama agenda is all they see, through the color red.

Those that want "change" should work for that, along with this Administration.

Of course Americans want a leader. They do not want a Christ, (excepting the deluded masses that are waiting for His Second Coming, of course!), a Buddha, a Muhammad or even a Gandhi or a King. But they love a head of State. Always have.

James W Caeser is an idiot. With all regard for his diplomas, of course. An idiot.