[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Kirk - I have to admit I found your post regarding Obama and Islam to be quite interesting and certainly very thorough. However, my overwhelming feeling when I was reading it was: how sad, and deeply disturbing, that anyone who wants to have a hope of becoming leader of supposedly the most diverse and free country in the world, has to pretend to be a devout Christian to stand a chance.

It is sinister that he concealed his past and feigned allegiance to Christianity to succeed in US politics. But it's not the act of concealment that is sinister - but the very fact that he would simply have HAD to, or else be rejected by the people there.

Is that not strange?

Why is it essential that a US president be a devout Christian? Why is anything else considered "dark" or "sinister"? Of course this is a rhetorical question. I already know why.

I agree that him being Muslim should have no bearing on whether he would make a good President or not - in my book it shouldn't, and I don't really know just why he did not be honest from the start.

You might be right and he may have been advised from the start of his political ambition that he would have to conceal his true faith and 'adopt' Christianity in order to stand any chance of realising that ambition, but I think that was bad advice because the truth was bound to surface at some point.

I do have a real problem with his 'charade', but on a personal level, I have a greater problem - not with his 'feigned allegiance to Christianity' as you termed it - but with his increasingly evident anti-Christian attitude, because he has started to actually mock the very faith he 'adopted' in order to attain the presidency -- no matter what genuine reasons he may have had to feign such allegiance in the first place.

I don't profess to know all the answers T.S. but I can't help having my suspicions in light of what I regard as overwhelming evidence which justifies the many questions which do need answering about this 'iffy' matter.