What One Believes is Not Genetically or Legally Imposed - Processes of Thought (Especially Religious Ones) are Learned and Acted Upon

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), May 23, 2008 at 15:44

…."but let us stop the intentional twisting of the truth." Well intentioned as this observation is, we have seen that in ‘blog' exchanges, bias is the rule, not the exception, when it comes to perceptions of truth. This is a place where opinions to sway or counter opposing opinions are expressed, and truth becomes subjective for many.

But let us examine the basic premise of this post, to define whether or not Barack Hussein Obama is who we thinks he is, who he says he is, and who does anyone else think that he is. The real truth about Mr. Obama's personal religious commitment lies within himself, only to be portrayed to the outside as he may or may not feel compelled to reveal.

In many other venues, such things as a person is persuaded to believe are not required to be exposed, for in the typical life of an American citizen, it should not matter as a course of life. It is not so in the political realm, for even if there is supposed to be a respect of a person's religious convictions, it has become a tool of politics to make such an issue of such things because it has been acknowledged that as a person thinks on such things, they are part of the thinking process when it comes to decision-making that affects the lives of the constituency. Therein lies the rub.

People, American citizens of say, San Francisco or Massachusetts, have a decidedly liberal majority that does not take too well to the conservative and somewhat religious mindset of the mid-west area known as the Bible belt and other parts of America. It has been the typical exchange of countering principles in American politics until the introduction and increasing influence of the ‘Islamic' factor of the twenty-first century. Now what do we do?

In the nineteenth century, America fought the war of conflicting ideologies that initially ripped apart families, including along religious lines. Introduce a religious mindset that is acknowledged to have its militaristic tendencies well entrenched elsewhere, such that when it comes time to settle differences that cannot be settled peacefully for intransigence, is it not a potentially damaging thing to a civil society. This reader is not sure, but there seems to be an exhibit of such things in the conflict we see in Iraq.

Where such things need to be dealt with, the question remains, based on Mr. Obama's published statements and perceptions of his religious proclivities (whether Muslim or Christian-it is a matter of belief or faith and not law), does his mindset merely speak to issues of consequence, or will there be action precipitating other consequences? Think about it, that if he does manage to become the president elect, where will his sensibilities lie?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".