Obama's UN Speech And How Christianity Should Take A Backseat In The Future

In an original article written by Red State managing editor Erik Erickson, published on September 25th, 2012, details a very consequential speech by President Obama to the UN General Assembly that provides a clear picture of his beliefs on religion and its roll in his presidency. Excerpts from Erickson's reporting are noted in this article along with segments of Obama's speech.

Erickson writes, "In his speech to the United Nations General Assembly today, the President of the United States declared that the future does not belong to practicing Christians. Already, the media and the left are in full denial, probably based on their general lack of understanding of theology. This would have been a gaffe had Mitt Romney said it. But with Barack Obama, he's just speaking bold truths."

The following paragraph from Obama's speech is verbatim, not edited, enhanced or embellished. Obama said it word for word. 

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: "Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.' Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, and that is the vision we will support."

Am I to understand that Obama is saying that Christians, who believe the only way to salvation is through Jesus, are slandering the prophet Mohammed because of that belief? (Christians don't even believe that Mohammed is a prophet.) Does that explain what he means by his statement, "the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam?" If so, then Obama does believe Christianity has no place in the future. 

Erickson's article points out a very disturbing fact on how Obama compares the importance of the prophet of Islam to Jesus Christ. "Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the "image' of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied."  Note, Obama says we cannot "slander the prophet of Islam' but it's only the "image' of Christ in the next sentence -- not actually Christ himself desecrated. 

"If this is so," Erickson writes, "why does Barack Obama's government continue funding the National Endowment for the Arts, which funded Christ in piss, the Virgin Mary painted in dung, etc.? Now, in point of fact, this is a major difference between Islam and Christianity. Christ came to this world as an enemy of the world and expected to be impugned. He also tells his followers that they should expect to be impugned. There is joy in being persecuted for following the Risen Lord. In Islam, if you impugn Mohammed, you get a fatwa on your butt."

Next, the President of the United States tries to have it both ways in his speech concerning the recent outbreak of violence over the release of a video allegedly slandering Mohammed.

Obama: "I know there are some who ask why we don't just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views -- even views that we disagree with.

We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. 

We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this understanding of the protection of free speech. Yet in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence."

"Obama recites in his speech that,'there is no speech that justifies mindless violence,' yet, for the past 2 weeks he has condemned a reported a sacrilegious video trailer for a movie that does not even exist. Our government ran advertisements in Pakistan denouncing the video. Last week Obama was saying the violence was understandable given the offensive film, now he is trying to claim it was mindless."

According to Erickson, "The fact is, many religions do not recognize Mohammed as a prophet. In the widest swath of Islam, that denial is, in and of itself, slander. So what exactly are you saying Mr. President? As an exit point, with all of President Obama's statements on tolerance in his speech, we should remember that tolerance is really not a Christian virtue."